Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns four criminal appeals (Criminal Appeal Nos. 991, 992, 331, and 854 of 2011) heard together by the Bombay High Court. The appeals raised a common question of law regarding the interpretation and application of Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which provides for victim compensation. The appellants were victims or their representatives seeking compensation from the State for crimes committed against them, where the accused were either acquitted or not traced. The core issue was whether the State is obligated to pay compensation under Section 357A CrPC even when the accused is not convicted. The court, presided over by Justice Mrs. Roshan Dalvi, delivered a unanimous oral judgment. The court held that Section 357A CrPC imposes a mandatory duty on the State to compensate victims of crime, irrespective of the outcome of the trial. The provision must be interpreted liberally, applying the mischief rule (Heyden's rule), to effectuate the legislative intent of victim protection and rehabilitation. The court emphasized that the criminal justice system is not only about punishing offenders but also about ensuring justice to victims, who are often neglected. The State, being responsible for law and order, must bear the burden of compensating victims when the accused cannot be brought to justice. The court directed the State to formulate a scheme for victim compensation and to pay compensation in each case as per the guidelines. The appeals were allowed, and the State was directed to pay compensation to the victims.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Victim Compensation - Section 357A CrPC - Interpretation - The court held that Section 357A CrPC imposes a mandatory duty on the State to compensate victims of crime, irrespective of the outcome of the trial, including acquittal or untraced accused. The provision must be interpreted liberally to effectuate the legislative intent of victim protection and rehabilitation. (Paras 1-10) B) Victimology - Victim Protection - Doctrine of Victim Protection - The court recognized the doctrine of victim protection, victim representation, and victim rehabilitation as integral to the criminal justice system, emphasizing the State's role in ensuring justice to victims beyond mere punishment of offenders. (Paras 2-5) C) Interpretation of Statutes - Mischief Rule - Heyden's Rule - The court applied the mischief rule to interpret Section 357A CrPC, considering the pre-enactment state of affairs, the mischief of victim neglect, and the legislative remedy of mandatory compensation. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State is liable to pay compensation to victims of crime under Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, even when the accused is acquitted or not traced, and the extent of such compensation.
Final Decision
The court allowed the appeals, holding that Section 357A CrPC imposes a mandatory duty on the State to compensate victims of crime, irrespective of the outcome of the trial. The State was directed to formulate a scheme for victim compensation and to pay compensation in each case as per guidelines.
Law Points
- Victim compensation
- Section 357A CrPC
- victimology
- victim protection
- victim rehabilitation
- interpretation of statutes
- mischief rule
- heyden's rule
- welfare state
- human rights
