ORDER TO PAY COMPANSATION [SECTION 357]

ORDER TO PAY COMPANSATION [SECTION 357]

Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which deals with the order to pay compensation. Here's a breakdown of the section:

• When a court imposes a fine or a sentence that includes a fine, it may order the whole or part of the fine to be used for:
  • Defraying prosecution expenses
  • Paying compensation to victims or their families for loss or injury caused by the offence
  • Paying compensation to persons entitled to damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, in cases of death
  • Compensating bona fide purchasers of stolen property, if restored to the rightful owner
•  If the fine is imposed in a case subject to appeal, no payment shall be made until the appeal period has elapsed or the appeal is decided.
• Even if the sentence does not include a fine, the court may order the accused to pay compensation to the victim or their family for any loss or injury caused by the act.
• Appellate Courts, High Courts, or Courts of Session may also make such orders when exercising their powers of revision.
• In any subsequent civil suit related to the same matter, the court shall consider any compensation paid or recovered under this section when awarding further compensation.

This section empowers courts to order compensation to victims or their families from the fines imposed on the accused, ensuring that those affected by the offence receive some measure of reparation.

Definition of Victims in the eyes of UN :

The UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for the Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, adopted in 1985, was a groundbreaking document that recognized the importance of protecting victims' rights. By defining a "victim" in a broad and inclusive manner, the Declaration set a crucial international standard that has influenced national laws and policies, including in India.

The Declaration's definition of a victim encompasses a wide range of individuals who have suffered harm, injury, or loss due to criminal acts or omissions, regardless of the perpetrator's identity or relationship to the victim. This comprehensive approach has helped to:

• • Recognize the rights of victims of crime and abuse of power
  • Provide support and compensation to victims
  • Hold perpetrators accountable for their actions
  • Promote justice and healing for victims

The Declaration's impact can be seen in the development of national laws and policies that prioritize victims' rights, including in India, where it has informed legislation and court decisions aimed at protecting and supporting victims of crime and abuse of power.

Case Laws

High Court of Punjab and Haryana vs Atma Tube Products Ltd 2013:

Satyendra Kumar Mehra @ Satendra vs. the State of Jharkhand (2018)

The court held that Section 357(2) is only applicable when a court directs payment of compensation from the fine imposed as a sentence.

• • In this case, there was no such direction, so Section 357(2) was not attracted.
  • The court emphasized that the power under Section 357(2) is ancillary and only applicable in specific circumstances.

Manohar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (2014)

The court ordered compensation under Section 357(3) and emphasized the importance of considering the accused's ability and capacity to pay.The court noted that there was no evidence about the victim's medical expenses, loss of earnings, or the accused's financial capacity.Despite this, the court ordered the accused to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation within two months.

These cases highlight the importance of carefully considering the application of Section 357 and the accused's ability to pay when ordering compensation.

R. Vijayan v. Baby 2012 :
If the sentence includes a fine, the compensation can be paid from that fine. However, in cases where the sentence does not include a fine, the court can still award compensation to the injured or those who have suffered loss under Section 357(3).
This means that the court has the power to award compensation even if the sentence does not include a fine, ensuring that victims receive the compensation they deserve.

R. Mohan v. A.K. Vijaya Kumar The Supreme Court in this case held that:

• • Compensation under Section 357(3) must have consequences for non-payment to create deterrence.
  • Merely ordering compensation without consequences is ineffective.
  • A default sentence is necessary to ensure observance of the compensation order.
  • If compensation can be recovered like a fine, a default sentence can be imposed for non-payment, like in cases of non-payment of fine under Section 64 IPC.

This decision aims to ensure victims receive relief and compensation orders are taken seriously.