Compensation Under Section 357 Crpc
🔹 I. Overview of Section 357 CrPC: Compensation to Victims
Section 357 CrPC deals with the power of the court to order compensation or restitution to victims or their families during the course of a criminal trial. The aim is to provide relief and assistance to victims who have suffered loss or injury as a result of a crime.
Key Points of Section 357 CrPC
Section 357(1): When any person is convicted, the court may order him to make compensation or restitution to the victim or the dependents of a deceased victim.
Section 357(2): Compensation may also be ordered in cases where the accused is not convicted but the court finds a person guilty of an offence.
Section 357(3): Court can impose fine and order that the fine or any part of it be paid to the victim as compensation.
Section 357A (inserted by Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2008): Deals with the Victim Compensation Scheme, emphasizing that every state government must establish a scheme to provide compensation to victims.
🔹 II. Purpose and Scope
Compensation is in addition to punishment, not a substitute.
It recognizes the victim's right to restitution.
The amount of compensation is discretionary, based on the loss or injury caused.
It can be ordered during trial, after conviction, or at sentencing.
🔹 III. Important Case Laws on Section 357 CrPC
1. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384
Facts:
The Supreme Court laid down guidelines for compensation to rape victims.
It recognized that monetary compensation is necessary for rehabilitation and justice.
Held:
Courts have the power under Section 357 to award compensation.
The amount should be adequate and meaningful, reflecting the gravity of the crime and suffering.
Compensation can be paid from the fine imposed on the accused or from the Victim Compensation Fund.
Significance:
Landmark judgment that gave teeth to the victim compensation scheme.
Encouraged courts to consider victim’s rehabilitation as part of justice.
2. Laxmi v. Union of India (2014) 4 SCC 427
Facts:
The petitioner sought guidelines for compensation to acid attack victims.
Acid attack victims face lifelong physical and psychological trauma.
Held:
The Supreme Court directed states to establish Victim Compensation Funds.
Ordered that compensation be awarded without unnecessary delay.
Emphasized that compensation must cover medical treatment, rehabilitation, and loss of income.
Significance:
Expanded the ambit of Section 357 to include special categories of victims.
Reinforced the state’s duty to compensate victims under Section 357A.
3. State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash (2009) 10 SCC 450
Facts:
The accused was convicted for assault causing injury.
Victim sought compensation from the accused.
Held:
Court held that the power under Section 357 is not limited to convictions for major offences but applies to all offences.
Emphasized that the court’s power to order compensation extends to cases of bodily injury and loss.
Significance:
Broadened the scope of Section 357 beyond serious crimes to all cases where victim suffered injury or loss.
4. Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 4 SCC 1
Facts:
A police officer was found guilty of custodial death.
Victims sought compensation.
Held:
The Supreme Court reiterated the mandatory nature of compensation under Section 357 in custodial death cases.
The Court ordered monetary compensation and directed states to adopt victim compensation schemes.
Compensation can be ordered irrespective of criminal prosecution outcomes.
Significance:
Affirmed that state accountability and victim compensation are inseparable.
Set precedent for compensation in human rights violation cases.
5. Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2011) 5 SCC 1
Facts:
Concerned victims of trafficking and child labour.
Highlighted the absence of timely compensation for vulnerable victims.
Held:
The Court directed the Government to establish and implement comprehensive Victim Compensation Schemes.
Compensation must be timely, adequate, and reflect the nature of the crime.
Significance:
Emphasized the right of child victims and trafficking victims to compensation.
Strengthened the practical implementation of Section 357 and 357A.
6. M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 395 (Oleum Gas Leak Case)
Facts:
This was an environmental disaster case where victims suffered due to industrial negligence.
Victims sought compensation for loss of life and health.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that compensation must be paid to victims for environmental damage.
The polluter pays principle was applied.
The Court directed compensation to victims as part of civil liability and under criminal provisions.
Significance:
Expanded the concept of compensation beyond personal injury to environmental and public health damages.
Influenced criminal law compensation principles.
🔹 IV. Summary of Important Principles from These Cases
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Courts have discretionary power to award compensation under Section 357. | Compensation should be meaningful and adequate. |
| Compensation is distinct from punishment and is additional. | Helps victim rehabilitation and justice. |
| State must establish Victim Compensation Funds under Section 357A. | Ensures funds are available for compensation. |
| Compensation applies to all offences causing injury or loss. | Not limited to major offences only. |
| Compensation must be timely, especially in vulnerable cases (acid attacks, trafficking, custodial deaths). | Reduces further victim suffering. |
| Courts can order fine to be paid as compensation. | Ensures offenders pay restitution. |
| Environmental and public harm victims can also claim compensation. | Expands the ambit of Section 357. |
🔹 V. Conclusion
Section 357 CrPC has evolved as a powerful tool for victim empowerment in the criminal justice system. The judiciary’s proactive interpretation has ensured victims receive monetary relief alongside prosecution of offenders.
Victim compensation is now recognized as a right, and courts use Section 357 not just to punish offenders but to restore victims, rehabilitate them, and deliver holistic justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments