1.

Increasing the compensation amount

Section 357A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) talks about the victim
compensation scheme. It states:(1) Every State Government in co-ordination with the Central Government shall
prepare a scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation to the victim or
his dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who
require rehabilitation1
Victim compensation scheme has thus been strengthened by assigning role to the State
Governments and Legal Service Authority in its implementation. The scheme is made
applicable to the victims irrespective of the outcome of the prosecution.2
The compensation so demanded to be raised from Rs. 2,00,000/- by taking into the
account the expenditure incurred in upbringing the dead victim by his old parents.3
The

Delhi

Court

has

also

noted,

the

amendments

to

the Code of Criminal Procedure brought about in 2008 focused heavily on the rights
of victims in a criminal trial, particularly in trials relating to sexual offences. Though
the

2008

amendments

left

Section

357

unchanged,

they

introduced

Section 357A under which the Court is empowered to direct the State to pay
compensation to the victim in such cases where the compensation awarded Under
Section 357 is not adequate for such rehabilitation, or where the case ends in acquittal
or discharge and the victim has to be rehabilitated. Under this provision, even if the
accused is not tried but the victim needs to be rehabilitated, the victim may request the
State or District Legal Services Authority to award him/her compensation. This
provision was introduced due to the recommendations made by the Law Commission

1 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 357A.

2 R.V. Kelkar, Criminal Procedure 639 (6th ed. Eastern Book Company 2014).
3 Moot Problem, Pg.15

of India in its 152nd and 154th Reports in 1994 and 1996 respectively. (Para 46 and
47)4
As is also the scenario in present case, the amount spent by the parents for the
upbringing of the victim needs to be taken into account. The compensation amount of
Rs. 2,00,000/- is not adequate for rehabilitation of the loss experienced by the parents
of the victim.
In another case, the learned Supreme Court of India held that, When the State fails to
identify the accused or fails to collect and present acceptable evidence to punish the
guilty, the duty to give compensation remains. Victim of a crime or his kith and kin
have legitimate expectation that the State will punish the guilty and compensate the
victim. There are systemic or other failures responsible for crime remaining
unpunished which need to be addressed by improvement in quality and integrity of
those who deal with investigation and prosecution, apart from improvement of
infrastructure but punishment of guilty is not the only step in providing justice to
victim. Victim expects a mechanism for rehabilitative measures, including monetary
compensation. Such compensation has been directed to be paid in public law remedy
with reference to Article.5
In the same case the court also held that, In the present case, the impugned judgment
shows that the de facto complainant, PW-2 Raman Anand, filed Criminal Revision
No.1477 of 2004 for compensation to the family members of deceased Devender
Chopra and his son Abhishek Chopra. The same has been dismissed by the High
Court without any reason. In fact even without such petition, the High Court ought to
have awarded compensation. There is no reason as to why the victim family should
not be awarded compensation under Section 357-A by the State. Thus, we are of the
view that the State of Haryana is liable to pay compensation to the family of the
deceased.6
4 Ghanshyam @Bittu v. State, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 4720
5 Suresh and another v. State of Haryana, 2015 SCC OnLine SC 952, 12
6 Id, 15

In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mehtaab7, the Supreme Court of India
found that, apart from the sentence and fine/compensation to be paid by the accused,
the court has to award compensation by the State under Section 357A CrPC when the
accused is not in a position to pay fair compensation as laid down by this court in
Suresh v. State of Haryana.
It can be clearly inferred that, as is the present case, the High Court ought to have
awarded compensation and there was no reason for it to deny the victim family
compensation. And as such, the Supreme Court of India has already set precedents as
to there can be no reason to deny the victim family compensation under section 357A
CrPC.

7 (2015) 5 SCC 197