Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.23 seconds)Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 357 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Hari Kishan & Anr vs Sukhbir Singh & Ors on 25 August, 1988
In Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh, ((1988) 4 SCC 551 this
Court lamented the failure of the courts in awarding
compensation to the victims in terms of Section 357(1) CrPC.
The Court recommended to all courts to exercise the power
available under Section 357 Cr PC liberally so as to meet the
9
ends of justice. The Court said: (SCC PP.557-58, para 10)
“10. …Sub-section (1) of Section 357 provides
power to award compensation to victims of the
offence out of the sentence of fine imposed on
accused. ….It is an important provision but courts
have seldom invoked it. Perhaps due to ignorance
of the object of it. It empowers the court to award
compensation to victims while passing judgment of
conviction. In addition to conviction, the court
may order the accused to pay some amount by way
of compensation to victim who has suffered by the
action of accused. It may be noted that this power
of courts to award compensation is not ancillary to
other sentences but it is in addition thereto. This
power was intended to do something to reassure
the victim that he or she is not forgotten in the
criminal justice system. It is a measure of
responding appropriately to crime as well of
reconciling the victim with the offender. It is, to
some extent, a constructive approach to crimes. It
is indeed a step forward in our criminal justice
system. We, therefore, recommend to all courts to
exercise this power liberally so as to meet the ends
of justice in a better way. (emphasis supplied)
…………..
Chandru @ Ramchandra S/O Ram Naik vs Ganapati Rama Bhat on 16 June, 2014
11. The conviction of the appellants under Section 326
IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 427 IPC read with
Section 34 IPC is confirmed. Sentence of imprisonment of three
months imposed on them is reduced to the period already
undergone by each of them. Additionally, the fine of
Rs.25,000/- is imposed on each of the appellants–accused and
11
in default to undergo sentence of imprisonment of three months.
Out of the fine amount to be deposited by the
appellants–accused, the injured witnesses PWs 1, 3, 4 and 5
(Vishveshwar P. Hegde, Kiran R. Bhat, Chandranath V. Bhat
and Madhukar L. Hegde) who sustained grievous injuries shall
be paid compensation of Rs.17,500/- each and PW 2-Chandru
V. Bhat who suffered simple injuries shall be paid compensation
of Rs. 5,000/-. With the above modification, the appeal is
allowed in part.
Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. & Anr on 10 April, 2007
In Dilip S. Dahanukar case this Court even
favoured an inquiry albeit summary in nature to determine the
paying capacity of the offender. The Court said: (SCC p.545,
para 38)
‘38. The purpose of imposition of fine and/or
grant of compensation to a great extent must be
considered having the relevant factors therefore in
mind. It may be compensating the person in one
way or the other. The amount of compensation
sought to be imposed, thus, must be reasonable
and not arbitrary. Before issuing a direction to
pay compensation, the capacity of the accused to
pay the same must be judged. A fortiori, an
10
enquiry in this behalf even in a summary way, may
be necessary. Some reasons, which may not be
very elaborate, may also have to be assigned; the
purpose being that whereas the power to impose
fine is limited and direction to pay compensation
can be made for one or the other factors
enumerated out of the same; but sub-section (3) of
Section 357 does not impose any such limitation
and thus, power thereunder should be exercised
only in appropriate cases. Such a jurisdiction
cannot be exercised at the whims and caprice of a
Judge.”
The amount of compensation is to be determined by the courts
depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case,
nature of the offence and the capacity of the accused to pay.