CAUSE TITLE:
TALAT SANVI v STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR
DATE OF ORDER:
24th January 2023
JUDGE(S):
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
PARTIES:
Appellant: TALAT SANVI
Respondent: STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR
SUBJECT:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘Supreme Court’ or ‘the Court’), has set aside the impugned order of the High Court and held that Victim compensation is concurrent with the conclusion drawn about the alleged crime, i.e., whether it was actually committed or not, thus there is no issue of its imposition prior to the verdict in the case and before the trial.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 357 - provides for an order to pay damages when a court imposes a punishment or a sentence (including a death sentence) that includes a fine in the instances listed therein.
BRIEF FACTS:
- In granting anticipatory bail to a respondent charged under Section 498A of the IPC, the High Court stipulated that, " within a time period of four months in the event of his detainment or retreat from the date of this order, he shall be granted bail upon accumulating a direct deposit of Rs. 4,00,000/- as ad interim victim compensation made in favour of complainant."
- The situation in this case is more complicated since anticipatory bail is not being granted as a result of a monetary payment or deposit; instead, interim victim compensation is being ordered as part of the process for anticipatory bail.
- The panel granted the appeal brought against a decision of the Jharkhand High Court.
QUESTIONS ROSE:
Whether interim victim restitution in anticipatory bail hearings can be enforced as a requirement for the same?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- It has been stated by the council that the "victimology" movement paved the door for monetary awards that provided governments with an incentive by tying them to victims' assistance in the enforcement of criminal charges.
- The compensation provided to the victim is under section 357 of Cr.P.C. it has been elaborated that this section provides for an order to pay restitution in cases where a court sentences someone to a fine or a punishment (including a death sentence) in which a fine is a component.
- It can be seen that the basic meaning of Section 357 indicates that such reimbursement can only occur following the completion of the trial, while it is obvious that this is a matter of discretion of the court.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- It has been argued by the council that the issue of interim victim compensation is outside the purview of bail jurisprudence, we do feel that the challenged decree is in violation of the law.
- Through various judgments the said issue has been clarified and it has been noted that It was noted that bail cannot be granted per se if an individual is able to make a deposit or has the ability to pay. However, bail has occasionally been granted with the provision of depositing sizeable amount of cash with no consideration of the specifications of bail depending on the type of the offences.
- It was also argued that victim compensation is not related to anticipatory bail as there is no money recovery at that time.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT:
According to the Court, the goal is clear: in situations of bodily harm, compensating the sufferer should be the manner of atonement. In a similar vein, where pointless criminal procedures had been initiated, compensation was granted to minimise unwanted harassment. When bail is granted, it is difficult to estimate how much of a compensation will be due.
We have no reluctance in quashing the limitation placed in the assailed decision in this regard while upholding the other parts of the issuance of anticipatory relief since we disapprove of such judicial mishap. As a result, the appeal is granted and the parties are responsible for their own costs.
CONCLUSION
In the above case the victim compensation concept was analysed by the court. Victim compensation programmes were developed in Canada and a few American states, which incentivized people to take part in criminal proceedings. Early in the 1980s, leading steps to alter the system of criminal justice on the welfare of victims were taken by pioneers in victimology and the concept of victim justice. In 1985, the General Assembly adopted the UN Declaration on Basic Justice Principles for Victims of Abuse of Power overwhelmingly (Groenhuijsen, 2014). As a result of the Declaration, victims of crime now have particular privileges, along with the right to reimbursement.
Importance of section 357 of Cr.P.C is explained by the appellant. The said section imposes the restriction that, where a fine is assessed in a case that is subject to appeal, it may not be paid before the appeal's deadline has passed or, in the event that one has been filed, before the appeal's judgement. It is stated that this is done as restitution for anyone who has suffered loss or harm as a consequence of the act against which the offender has received this punishment. Therefore, it stipulates that when using its provisional authority, the appellate court, the High Court, or the Court of Sessions may direct payment of compensation
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
