Case Note & Summary
The appellant, the original first informant (complainant), lodged an FIR against five accused persons for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Gujarat Police Act. The trial court convicted the respondents (original accused Nos. 1 and 2) under Section 325 IPC and sentenced them to five years' rigorous imprisonment, along with other sentences. The respondents appealed to the High Court, which reduced the sentence from five years to four years. Additionally, the High Court directed that if each respondent deposited Rs. 2.50 lakh (total Rs. 5 lakh) as compensation to the victim within ten weeks, they would not be required to undergo the remainder of the sentence. The appellant challenged this order before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court's procedure was lawful. The court analyzed Section 357 CrPC, which allows a court to order payment of compensation to the victim, but held that this provision does not empower the court to reduce or substitute the substantive sentence of imprisonment. The court noted that the High Court's reliance on Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra was misplaced, as that case dealt with the duty to consider compensation, not with reducing sentence. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order to the extent that it allowed the accused to avoid imprisonment by paying compensation, and directed that the respondents must undergo the sentence of four years' rigorous imprisonment as reduced by the High Court, without any further modification.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Compensation - Section 357 CrPC - Substitution of Sentence - The High Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment from five years to four years and further directed that if the accused pay Rs. 2.50 lakh each as compensation to the victim, they need not undergo the remainder of the sentence. The Supreme Court held that this procedure is impermissible in law as compensation under Section 357 CrPC cannot be used to substitute or reduce the substantive sentence of imprisonment. The court clarified that the power to award compensation is separate from the power to impose sentence and cannot be used to modify the sentence. (Paras 17-20) B) Criminal Procedure - Compensation - Section 357 CrPC - Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad Case - The High Court relied on Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, but the Supreme Court held that the said decision does not permit reduction of sentence on payment of compensation. The compensation is to be paid in addition to the sentence, not in lieu of it. (Paras 13, 20) C) Criminal Procedure - Sentence - Reduction - Section 357 CrPC - The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order to the extent that it allowed the accused to avoid imprisonment by paying compensation. The court directed that the accused must undergo the sentence of four years' rigorous imprisonment as reduced by the High Court, without any further modification. (Para 20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court could reduce the sentence of imprisonment and further direct that if the accused pay compensation, they need not undergo the remainder of the sentence.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order to the extent that it allowed the accused to avoid imprisonment by paying compensation. The court directed that the respondents must undergo the sentence of four years' rigorous imprisonment as reduced by the High Court, without any further modification.
Law Points
- Compensation under Section 357 CrPC cannot be used to reduce or substitute substantive sentence of imprisonment
- Section 357 CrPC is only for payment of compensation and does not empower court to modify sentence
- Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad case does not permit reduction of sentence on payment of compensation
