Compensation To Victim Not A Ground For Reducing Jail Sentence: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court in a recent order observed that compensation cannot be a ground for reducing sentence of the accused. The top Court was hearing a petition filed by a Rajendra Bhagwanji Umraniya, challenging a Gujarat High Court order that reduced jail term of an accused. The High Court had reduced jail term imposed upon two persons from five to to four years.
While hearing the case, a two-judge bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra stated that if the compensation paid to the victims be a consideration for minimising the jail sentence, it would lead to a “catastrophic” consequences on the criminal justice system.
The court argued that the objective of compensation to the victims in a criminal case is to rehabilitate those who have suffered injury or losses in the offense committed against them by the accused, and noted that it cannot be a ground for reducing the sentences.
The victim compensation under the provision of Section 357 CrPC has nothing to do with the convict or the sentence passed, the Court observed.
Read also: Supreme Court Upholds Chartered Accountants’ Body’s Rule To Limit Number Of Audits In A Year
The court reasoned that the criminals who have money would buy their way out of justice, resulting in the failure of the purpose of criminal proceedings.
“Payment of victim compensation cannot be a consideration or a ground for reducing the sentence imposed upon the accused as victim compensation is not a punitive measure and only restitutory in nature and thus, has no bearing with the sentence that has been passed which is punitive in nature,” the bench said.
Read also: ED Can’t Arrest Accused If Special Court Takes Cognisance: Supreme Court
The top Court further stated that the idea of compensation is based on the theory of victimology, which recognises the harsh reality that victims are unfortunately forgotten people in the criminal justice delivery system.
However, noting that the 12 years has passed since the incident, and that the convict had already deposited five lakh, the Court said that it is not inclined to direct them to undergo a further sentence of four years.
