2004 (1) TMI 698 - SC - Indian Laws

Power of the Court to award compensation to victims - Scope and ambit of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 ( the Code ) - No fine imposed by the trial Court - grant of an opportunity to be heard - violation of principles of natural justice - commission of offences punishable u/s 452 148 323 read with Section 149 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 ( the IPC ) - alleged for causing death ( the deceased ) - HELD THAT - The power of the Court to award compensation to victims u/s 357 is not ancillary to other sentences but is in addition thereto. In Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh and Ors. 1986 (8) TMI 441 - SUPREME COURT it was observed that the power u/s 357 is a measure of responding appropriately to crime as well as reconciling the victim with the offender. It is to some extent a re-compensatory measure to rehabilitate to an extent the beleaguered victims of the crime a modern constructive approach to crimes a step forward in our criminal justice system. If it is found that the compensation should be ordered to be paid then while arriving at the quantum to be paid Courts are obliged to keep into account the capacity of the accused to pay the compensation besides taking into consideration also the nature of the crime in each case the justness of the claim for compensation and the need for it in the context of the victim or members of the family of the victim and other relevant circumstances if any in so fixing or apportioning the amount of compensation. As noted above the mode of application of the fine is indicated in sub-section (1) of Section 357. Sub-section (3) contains an independent and distinct power to award compensation. Grant of an opportunity to be heard - It is urged by the learned counsel for the State that unlike a sentence of fine before imposition of which a Court is required to hear the accused while considering the question of quantum of sentence it is but natural that the trial Court after hearing on the question of sentence does not impose a fine but in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 357 proceed to award compensation at that juncture or even during the course of hearing as to the quantum of sentence by sufficient indication made by the Court concerned the accused gets opportunity to present his version as to the relevant criteria or norms to be applied in the context of the case before the Court on the quantum of compensation. The position cannot be said to be in any way different while the Appellate or Revisional Court also does it in terms of sub- section (4) unless it is by any agreement or consent of the parties such compensation has been fixed. No form or procedure should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigant s defence or stand. Even in the absence of a provision in procedural laws power inheres in every Tribunal/Court of a judicial or quasi-judicial character to adopt modalities necessary to achieve requirements of natural justice and fair play to ensure better and proper discharge of their duties. Procedure is mainly grounded on principles of natural justice irrespective of the extent of its application by express provision in that regard in given situation. Accordingly we set aside that part of the High Court judgment which relates to direction for payment of compensation by the accused- appellant and remit the matter back to the High Court which shall grant an opportunity to the accused-appellant and the adjudication shall be limited to that question particularly relating to the liability of the appellant only since others are said to have already paid the respective amount. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the issue to be decided u/s 357 (4) of the Code. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Scope and ambit of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Requirement of hearing the accused before awarding compensation u/s 357(3) and (4) of the Code.

Summary:

Scope and Ambit of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The appellant faced trial for offences u/s 452, 148, 323 read with Section 149, 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The trial court convicted the appellant and others for various offences but did not impose any fine. The High Court, however, directed the payment of compensation u/s 357(3) and (4) of the Code, without imposing a fine. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of Section 357, noting that sub-section (1) applies when a fine is imposed, while sub-section (3) applies even when no fine is imposed. The Court emphasized that the power to award compensation is not ancillary but in addition to other sentences.

Requirement of Hearing the Accused Before Awarding Compensation:
The appellant argued that the High Court violated principles of natural justice by not providing an opportunity to be heard before fixing the quantum of compensation. The State contended that Section 357 does not mandate a hearing before awarding compensation. The Supreme Court held that principles of natural justice must be read into the statute unless explicitly excluded. The Court concluded that an opportunity must be granted to the accused before directing payment of compensation u/s 357(4) of the Code. The expression "may" in the statute indicates a discretionary power, not an obligatory one.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's direction for payment of compensation by the accused-appellant and remitted the matter back to the High Court to grant an opportunity to the accused-appellant for a hearing on the issue of compensation. The adjudication will be limited to the appellant's liability, as others have already paid their respective amounts. The appeal was allowed to the extent indicated.