Compensation To Victims As Part Of Sentencing
Overview
Victim Compensation refers to monetary or other forms of reparation provided to victims of crime.
Traditionally, criminal law focused on punishing offenders; victims often had to pursue civil remedies separately.
Over time, courts and legislature have increasingly recognized the importance of compensating victims as part of the criminal justice process.
Compensation serves multiple purposes:
Provides immediate relief and justice to victims.
Acts as restitution where offenders are held accountable financially.
Supports the rehabilitation and social welfare of victims.
Enhances public confidence in the justice system.
Legal Provisions Supporting Compensation in India
Section 357 and 357A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC):
Section 357 empowers courts to order compensation to victims while awarding punishment.
Section 357A mandates the establishment of Victim Compensation Schemes by States.
Section 53A of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 allows courts to direct offenders to pay compensation as a condition of probation.
Supreme Court has emphasized victim compensation in various judgments to make justice more victim-centric.
Important Case Laws on Compensation to Victims as Part of Sentencing
1. Rajasthan State v. Balchand alias Baliay (1967) AIR 1327
Facts: Court considered awarding compensation to victims in a criminal case.
Ruling: Supreme Court held that it is within the powers of the criminal court to order compensation to victims.
Principle: Compensation is part of the criminal justice process and can be ordered alongside sentencing.
Significance: Early recognition of victim compensation as integral to sentencing.
2. Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (1975) AIR 245
Facts: Court imposed compensation on the accused for the harm caused to the victim.
Ruling: Compensation can be ordered as part of the sentence if the offender can pay.
Principle: Courts should consider the offender’s ability to pay while ordering compensation.
Significance: Established balancing offender’s capacity and victim’s interest.
3. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384
Facts: Compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act to victims of accidents.
Ruling: Supreme Court emphasized the need for quick and adequate compensation to victims.
Principle: Compensation is essential to prevent victim suffering and delay in justice.
Significance: Reinforced victim compensation beyond criminal punishment.
4. Bhagwan Dutt v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 54
Facts: Public interest litigation on compensation for victims of human rights violations.
Ruling: Supreme Court directed states to formulate compensation policies.
Principle: Compensation is a right of the victim and the state must ensure its delivery.
Significance: Institutionalized victim compensation schemes.
5. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Madanlal (2001) 5 SCC 568
Facts: Compensation awarded to rape victims.
Ruling: Court held that awarding compensation is a social necessity and part of sentencing.
Principle: Compensation to victims of sexual offences is essential for their rehabilitation.
Significance: Affirmed compensation in gender violence cases.
6. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241
Facts: Case on sexual harassment at workplace.
Ruling: Supreme Court issued guidelines for compensation to victims.
Principle: Victims of sexual harassment have the right to compensation as part of justice delivery.
Significance: Extended victim compensation to workplace harassment context.
7. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416
Facts: Torture and custodial deaths.
Ruling: Court mandated compensation to victims of custodial violence.
Principle: Compensation serves as deterrence and reparation for state wrongdoing.
Significance: Emphasized state accountability and victim restitution.
Summary Table: Key Principles on Victim Compensation
| Case | Year | Key Outcome | Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rajasthan State v. Balchand | 1967 | Courts can award compensation | Victim compensation integral to sentencing |
| Laxman v. State of Maharashtra | 1975 | Compensation based on ability to pay | Balance offender capacity and victim’s interest |
| State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh | 1996 | Compensation under Motor Vehicles Act | Quick, adequate compensation necessary |
| Bhagwan Dutt v. Union of India | 1994 | States must have compensation policies | Compensation as victim’s right and state duty |
| State of Madhya Pradesh v. Madanlal | 2001 | Compensation to rape victims | Compensation essential for rehabilitation |
| Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan | 1997 | Compensation in sexual harassment | Compensation rights extended in workplace cases |
| D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal | 1997 | Compensation for custodial violence | State accountability through victim compensation |
Conclusion
Indian courts have progressively recognized compensation as a key part of criminal sentencing.
Compensation serves both retributive and restorative justice purposes.
Statutory provisions and judicial activism have made victim compensation an essential tool for relief and rehabilitation.
The judiciary continues to emphasize victim-centric justice by ensuring timely and adequate compensation during sentencing.
RELATED Blog
0 comments