VICTIM’S RIGHT TO RESTITUTION KARAN SINGH –VS—STATE N.C.T OF DELHI [CRL. APPEAL 352 & 353 OF 2020, HIGH COURT OF DELHI]

 

VICTIM’S RIGHT TO RESTITUTION

KARAN SINGH –VS—STATE N.C.T OF DELHI

[CRL. APPEAL 352 & 353 OF 2020, HIGH COURT OF DELHI]

 

The following is the case summary of a landmark judgement in Karan Singh v. State N.C.T. of Delhi in which the Delhi High Court acquired the right to restitution for victims of crime.

The relationship between an aggrieved person and an offender by examining the cause and the nature of the consequent suffering is known as Victimology. Most often, in a criminal case, the focus always lies on the accused rather than the aggrieved person. A case does not reach justice when an accused is charged with the commission of offence. The victim who is affected by the crime needs to receive adequate compensation. In this case, the Court

highlights the importance of victim compensation and gives emphasis and mandates on Victim Impact Report that helps determines compensation to the victim of crime.

FACTS OF THE CASE

On June 15, 2017, the appellants (Karan, Sunny and MB), juvenile drags the victim (Gulfam) out of his house and stabs in with a knife. Gulfam is left with fatal injuries. On March 6,2020. the appellants were charged for the offences under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and the judgement was reserved in March while the Judge was being posted at Karkardooma Courts. On March 13, 2020, the Session Judge got transferred from

Karkardooma Courts to Rohini Courts. On July 9, 2020, the impugned judgement was pronounced. The impugned judgement was challenged on grounds firstly being after transfer Judge lacked jurisdiction with respect to Karkardooma Courts matters. Secondly, Note 2 which was attached to the transferred order and it empowered judges to pronounce judgement in reserved matters was invalid. In July, 2020, an appeal was filed before the Division Bench of High Court which was considered by the DB thus appointed an amicus curiae. In Gokaraju Rangaraju v State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that judgment given

by Session Judge is valid and legal even when appointment of such judge is held to be invalid emphasising on Article 233A of the Indian Constitution which protects judgements by judges

notwithstanding that their appointment, posting, promotion or transfer was not valid.

ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE

I. Whether awarding compensation u/s 357 (3) Cr.PC. is mandatory in nature?

LEGAL ASPECTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 302

Punishment for murder

Section 34

Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Section 357(3)

357. Order to pay compensation.

(3) When a Court imposes a sentence, of which fine does not form a part, the Court may, when passing judgment, order the accused person to pay, by way of compensation.

Section 375

No Appeal in certain cases when accused pleads guilty. Notwithstanding anything

contained in Section 374, where an accused person has pleaded guilty and has been convicted on such plea, there shall be no appeal,-

(a) if the conviction is by a High Court; or

(b) if the conviction is by a Court of Session, Metropolitan Magistrate or Magistrate of the first or second class, except as to the extent or legality of the sentence.

JUDGEMENT

The Delhi High Court made an essential advancement in the criminal justice system of restitution procedure. The court ordered the perpetrator to file an affidavit after their conviction, exhibiting their income, assets, liabilities and expenditures in order for the trial courts to make an accurate approximation of the restitutive amount to be paid to the victim or their family in the event of the victim’s death for which it was state that “The Court has to

take into consideration the effect of the offence on the victim’s family even though human life cannot be restored but then monetary compensation will at least provide some solace.”

Furthermore, Section 257(3) directs the court to award compensation to the person who has suffered the consequences of the acts of the accused. The court concluded that Section 357(3) of CrPC is compulsory because the term “may” mean “must”. The Court cited Supreme Court’s decision in Hari Singh v Sukhbir Singh, in which the bench criticized the Indian Courts for failing to compensate victims of crime.

Furthermore, in the case of Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, it was held that courts must be considerate of Section 357 of CrPC in every criminal case and if a court

refuses to make a compensation order, it must be justified with a valid reasoning. In the light of this, the court further ordered that a just and reasonable compensation be determined by taking into account all of the victim’s expenses, including any money spent on counselling, medical treatment, legal fees, lost wages, property damage, funeral expenses and so on.

In regards with quantum of compensation, the court stated that quantum of compensation is to be decided on the basis of gravity of offence, the severity of mental and physical harm inflicted on the victim, damages/losses to victims and capacity of the offender to pay. Further, current occupation and income of the perpetrator was to be determined so that monthly compensation could be directed to pay to the victim. After the conviction of an accused, he/she is mandated to file an affidavit stating his/her income and assets. Victim Impact Report was also mandated by the Delhi State Legal Service Authority after every conviction in order to disclose the impact of crime inflicted on victim.

The High Court ordered to pay the agreed-upon amount to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA), which will then distribute it to the victims. However, if the accused does

not have the financial means to pay the decided amount, the victim will be compensated according to the rules set forth in Section 375A of CrPC; the 2018 compensation model- DSLSA will pay compensation from the Victim Compensation Fund. The bench closed the decision by emphasizing that victimology and the criminal justice system are inextricable linked hence stated “The object of the Section 357(3) of CrPC is to provide compensation to the victims who have suffered loss or injury by reason of the act of the accused. Mere punishment of the offender cannot give much solace to the family of the victim – civil action for damages is a long drawn and a cumbersome judicial process. Monetary compensation for redressal by the Court finding the infringement of the indefeasible right to life of the citizen is, therefore, useful and at time perhaps the only effective remedy to apply balm to the wounds of the family members of the deceased victim, who may have been the bread earner of the family”