COMPENSATORY ALLOWANCE TO THE VICTIMS ANKUSH SHIVAJI GAIKWAD –VS- STATE OF MAHARASTRA [CRL.APPEAL NO. 689 OF 203, SC]

COMPENSATORY ALLOWANCE TO THE VICTIMS

ANKUSH SHIVAJI GAIKWAD –VS- STATE OF MAHARASTRA

[CRL.APPEAL NO. 689 OF 203, SC]

Society is the victim as the society suffers because of the violation of laws. The very principles of victimology have their foundation from the Indian Constitution and the provisions of the Indian Constitution form an embankment when it comes to the concept of social and economic justice of the natives of the country. The present case arose from Criminal Appeal No. 359 that was filed in 2008 by the Appellant in the lower court and

throws a limelight on the plight of victims10 in the country. The case highlights the coded and limited implication of Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code tracing many loopholes leading to a lag between the coded use and the practical implication of the same. Section 357 of the CrPC empowers the courts to order the accused to pay “compensation” to the victim, which is in Indian criminal law incorporates powers only to the criminal court that too in a limited manner. A few of the aspects that may lead to such a loophole includes:

- Absence of any uniform head under which the compensation should be granted by the lower courts.

- No mechanism to calculate the amount of compensation/paying capacity of the accused.

- Absence of sentencing guidelines hindering the application of the section.

As per the Indian trend of justice, it needs an immediate review and expansion of the mindset of the judicial bodies to not only limit the compensation to fines or penalties imposed on the

accused but the principle to provide fund assistance to the victims out of its own funds.

 “Victim” means a person who has suffered any loss  or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression “victim” includes his or her guardian or legalheir.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The accused and his co-accused were held guilty of the offense of murder and were tried under Section 302 read with 34 IPC followed by a sentence of life imprisonment a fine of Rs.2,000/- each. The incident occurred without any premeditation and an unpredicted outbreak which arose from the heat of situation. Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad along with his other two friends namely Madhav Shivaji Gaikwad and Shivaji Bhivaji Gaikwad were passing through the field of the deceased. During that time, the dog of the deceased person started barking towards the appellant and his friend and to defend them from the dog the deceased and his friends used a lathi to hit the dog. All this chaotic situation, lead to a word war by medium of abusable words used by both the parties.  This exchange of abusive words led to a situation of fight where the Appellant – Ankush Gaikwad had hit the farmer with iron rod pipe on this head. The witness of the incident- the farmer’s wife named Mangalbai and the owner of the neighbourhood field named Ramesh Ganpati Pawar carried the deceased to the hospital. The wife of the deceased filed a complaint against the accused persons under Section 323, 326 and 504 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C was registered by the police. Port-mortem reports revealed the following injuries were detected his right ear, on the right arm and some internal injuries on his head and fractures on the skull, blood clots in his brain tissue that may lead to death of the person. And as a result, the appellant filed a petition before the high court.

ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE

I. Whether the accused is liable for lesser offence i.e., culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable u/s. 304 Part I or II of IPC?

II. Whether the courts should be responsible to consider the question of awarding compensation to the victim?

III. Whether courts should be held accountable to cite the reasons while granting or refusing compensation to them?

IV. Whether compensation should be awarded as per the terms of section 357 Cr.P.C.?

Plea of the Appellant

The learned counsels for the appellants had wisely highlighted the facts with an open-minded broad base arguing that there was no intention to fight or harm the deceased and there was no prior stated enmity between the deceased and the appellant; it was the heat of the situation which unfortunately led to the incident of fighting. It was pleaded that the case must fall in

the ambit of Section 300 exception 4 of the Indian Penal Code.

Respondent

The respondents had been confined and relied to the nature of the offence committed by the appellant but did not deeply categorise the nitigrities of the murder being committed and the

situation in which murder was committed. The trial court and the high court had relied on the discretion of the learned counsels for respondents.

LEGAL ASPECTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Determining the nature of injury inflicted on the deceased and the understanding the heat of situation due to sudden quarrel stemming over barking of dog lead to scuffle between the parties and as a result appellant had hit the deceased with the iron rod which resultingly caused fatal injuries. The lower court in its initial decision held the appellant liable Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Appeal being considered thoroughly with the

facts; it was concluded that the accused carried no life-threatening weapon and there was no prior enmity stated between the appellant and deceased. Hence, the Appellate tribunal came upon the decision to alter the punishment under the ambit of Culpable Homicide not Amounting to Murder i.e. Section 300 exception 4 and the sentence of Rigorous imprisonment for life was to one year under Section 304 

Victimology- Award of Compensation u/s 357 CrPC.

Section 357 CrPC confers powers coupled up with the duty on the court to mandatorily apply its reasonability of the mind while awarding the compensation in a criminal case. Additionally, the court must wisely state the reasons for awarding/refusing grant of

compensation. Award compensation to the victim(s) or victim’s family of crime depends on certain factors including the Capacity of the accused to pay. The very objective of Section 357 would be defeated if the courts choose to ignore since the main intention of this section is to reassure the victims that they are not forgotten by the criminal justice system.

Interpretation of Statutes

A basic rule known as Heydon’s Rule or mischief rule which means to prevent the misuse of the provisions of the statute. If an attempt is made to add mischief in any statute the same

may be prevented by mischief rule. Jurisprudence says that the mischief rule can encroach upon the literal and grammatical interpretation of statute. Also, the supporting rule of interpretation that comes into the fundamentals of understanding of laws is the basic rule of statutory interpretation that the words of the statute may be read in their content and in their grammatical and ordinary sense with the motive to fulfil the scheme of the act and intent of the legislature.

JUDGEMENT 

In the following case, the Supreme Court kept in highlights the material facts that:

1. Distinction between Motive, Intention and Knowledge in the Judgement.

2. The court has the power to grant or reject compensation but it is the duty of the court

to apply a mindful decision with the reasonable conclusion to provide justice.

3. Considering the nature of Crime and restudying the facts of the case which included some observations like:

Applicability of Mind of Judiciary:

The Hon’ble Coram remarked in the term applicability in turn can be best understood as disclosure of thoughts of one’s mind which may reasonable be expressed only by citing reasons in support of the order. Stating the reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicious disposal of matter and an indication to know the manner and quality if assessment undertaken by the judicial bodies. The appeal was allowed to the extent of convicting the appellant being amount to be convicted under Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. The fine imposed upon the appellant and the rigorous punishment remained unchanged upon the appellant. The senior judiciary placed a remark on the applicability of the mind of judiciary.