Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.31 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
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 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.
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
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."
Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Baldev Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 13 October, 1995
In Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1978) 4 SCC 111, Balraj v. State
of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 29, Baldev Sigh v. State of Punjab, (1995) 6 SCC 593,
Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd., (2007) 6 SCC 528 this Court
held that the power of the courts to award compensation to victims under
Section 357 is not ancillary to other sentences but in addition thereto and
that imposition of fine and/or grant of compensation to a great extent must
depend upon the relevant factors apart from such fine or compensation being
just and reasonable.