Chattisgarh High Court

State Of Chhattisgarh vs Kanhaiyya Lal And Anr on 17 March, 2025

                                                      1




                                                                                       NAFR

                          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                            CRR No. 129 of 2012
             State Of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.)
                                                                    ... Applicant/Appellant
                                                   versus
Digitally
signed by
             1 - Kanhaiyya Lal, S/o Hari Nandan Lal Sahu, aged about 30 years, R/o Village
ANJANI
KUMAR        Chhinddand, P.S. Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea (C.G.)
ALLENA
Date:        2 - Smt. Preeti Sahu, W/o Shri Krishna Sahu, aged about 30 years, R/o Chhinddad
2025.03.19
14:51:59     Main Road, P.S. Baikunthpur, District - Korea (C.G.)
+0530
                                                            ... Respondents/Non-applicants

For Applicant/State : Shri Ratan Nidhi Pusty, Government Advocate.

             For Respondent 1 :        None though served.
             For Respondent 2 :        Shri Punit Ruparel, Advocate.

                            (HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)

                                              Order on Board

             17/03/2025
                   Heard.

1. This revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the

judgment dated 14.02.2011 passed in Criminal Case No. 117/2009 by

the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baikunthpur, Dist. Korea

(C.G.) whereby the learned Court of J.M.F.C. ordered the State

Government to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for rehabilitation of

respondent No.2 - Smt. Preeti Sahu, in accordance with Section

357A(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.)

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 02.04.2009 at 8.00 pm, the

respondent No.1 abused respondent No.2 filthily at village Chhinddad,

upon which, husband of respondent No.2 and some villagers were

trying to pacify the dispute, but accused/respondent No.1 assaulted her

while threatening her to life, which was reported to the Police Station

Baikunthpur and based on report, offence under Sections 294, 323 and

506-B of IPC and Sections 4 & 5 of Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna

Nivaran Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2005) has been

registered against respondent No.2

3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Baikunthpur. The applicant abjured the charge

and pleaded non-guilty.

4. During trial, respondent No.2/victim had filed two applications on

14.02.2011, one is under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. and another, under

Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. wherein it was stated by the

victim/respondent No.2 that she and the accused/respondent No.2 are

members of the same family, they are brother-in-law and sister-in-law

(Devar & Bhabhi) in relation, a cordial relationship has been

established between them, discharging familial duties as before and

there exists no dispute between them, thus, both the parties have

reached a mutual settlement and due to mutual compromise between

them, the complainant is no longer interested in pursuing the case

against the accused/respondent No.2, therefore, case against the

respondent No.1 be closed. It is also stated by her that without any

fear and pressure, she voluntarily compromised the matter.

5. The learned Court of JMFC, on such applications and after considering

every aspect of the matter, acquitted the respondent No.1 of the

charges under Sections 294, 323 and 506-B of IPC while convicting

him under Sections 4 & 5 of the Act, 2005 on the ground that the

offence under Sections 4 & 5 of the Act, 2005 are non-compoundable

and while giving such finding, the trial Court directed the State

Government to pay Rs.50,000/- to respondent No.2/victim as

compensation for her rehabilitation as per Section 357A(3) of the

Cr.P.C. Hence, this revision by the State Government against the

award of compensation.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant/State submits that although there

existed mutual compromise between the respondents which resulted

in acquittal of the respondent No.1 of the charges under Sections 294,

323 and 506-B of IPC and his conviction under Sections 4 & 5 of the

Act, 2005 by the trial Court, but there was no order under Section 357

of Cr.P.C. against the accused/respondent No.1 for compensation

payable to the victim (respondent No.2), therefore, Section 357A(3) is

not applicable. In support, he placed his reliance upon the judgment

rendered in the matter of Sumit Kumar Shah and ors. vs. The State of

Jharkhand and ors. Reported in 2021 0 Supreme (Jhk) 94 : 2021 1

JLJR 666.

7. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent No.2/victim supports

the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court.

8. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and

perused the record.

9. Record shows that indisputably, the respondent No.1/accused was

charged under Sections 294, 323 and 506-B of IPC and Sections 4 &

5 of the Act, 2005. However, during trial, the respondent No.2/victim

had filed two applications on 14.02.2011, one is under Section 320(2)

Cr.P.C. and another, under Section 320(8)of Cr.P.C. stating therein that

she and the accused/respondent No.2 are members of the same

family, they are brother-in-law and sister-in-law (Devar & Bhabhi) in

relation, there exists cordial relationship between them, discharging

familial duties as before and also there was no dispute between them,

thus, both the parties have reached a mutual settlement and due to

mutual compromise between them, she does not want to pursue the

case against the accused/respondent No.1, therefore, case against the

respondent No.1 be closed. However, the trial Court vide its judgment

dated 14.02.2011, considering every aspect of the matter and also

considering the applications filed by the victim, acquitted the

respondent No.1 of the charges under Sections 294, 323 and 506-B of

IPC while convicting him under Sections 4 & 5 of the Act, 2005.

Although the trial Court convicted the accused/respondent No.1 as

such, but no order as to compensation payable to the victim under

Section 357 of Cr.P.C. was passed against him and in turn, the trial

Court, in the interest of justice to provide compensation to the victim

and also considering the provisions under Section 357A(3) of Cr.P.C.,

was of the opinion that the victim party cannot be deprived of the

benefit of this humanitarian provision and accordingly, under the

provision of Section 357A(3) of Cr.P.C., directed the State Government

to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the victim/respondent No.2 as

compensation for her rehabilitation. Such finding recorded by the trial

Court, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not sustainable.

10. Turning to the merits of the matter, it would be appropriate to notice

the law relating to compensation to victim in this behalf. Section 357A

was inserted in the Code by the Law Commission of India in its 154 th

Law Commission Report, which reads as follows:-

"357A. Victim compensation scheme.--- (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 rehabilitation.

(2) Whenever a recommendation is made by the Court for compensation, the District Legal Service Authority or the State Legal Service Authority, as the case may be, shall decide the quantum of compensation to be awarded under the scheme referred to in sub-section (1) (3) If the trial Court, at the conclusion of the trial, is satisfied, that the compensation awarded under section 357 is not adequate for such rehabilitation, or where the cases end in acquittal or discharge and the victim has to be rehabilitated, it may make recommendation for compensation.

(4) to (6) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

11. The object and purpose of the above provision is to enable the Court to

direct the State to pay compensation to the victim in case the

compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. is not adequate, thereby

meaning that if the compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. is not

adequate, then the trial Court may make a recommendation to the

State Government. However, a bare perusal of impugned judgment

would reveal that the trial Court did not pass any order of

compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. and straightaway passed the

order or compensation under Section 357A(3) Cr.P.C. Provisions

contained in Section 357 Cr.P.C. are clear for granting compensation to

the victim at the time of conclusion of trial.

12. In the matter of Sumit Kumar Shaw (supra), the High Court of

Jharkhand has held in para 44 as under:

"44. A conjoint reading of Section 357 and 357A(3), would clarify that if the convict is not in a position to compensate the victim adequately and the Court feels so, may recommend payment of further compensation, by invoking Section 357A(3) of the Code. The "Inadequate Compensation", which the convict pays in terms of Section 357 of the Code is made "adequate" by payment of additional compensation, which has to be paid by the State in terms of Section 357A(3) of the Code. Thus, the intent of the legislature is quite clear that the victim compensation, which has to be paid in terms of Section 357A of the Code has to be paid by the State from the fund, so created, and not by the accused. It is only by invoking Section

357 of the Code, after conclusion of trial, holding the guilt of the accused, the convict should be directed to pay compensation."

13. When the present matter is examined in the light of provision and

aforesaid decision, it is quite vivid that although the trial Court

convicted the respondent No.1/accused under Sections 4 & 5 of the

Act, 2005 while acquitting him of the charges under Sections 294, 323

and 506-B of IPC, but at the same time, it ignored to invoke Section

357 Cr.P.C. despite it being a clear provision of grant of compensation

to the victims. Besides, although the respondent No.1 was convicted

as such, but has not been imposed any fine amount and, furthermore

the dispute has already been settled by the complainant/victim with the

respondent No.1 as they are relatives with each other and have

established cordial relation. Therefore, the impugned judgment that the

State Government shall pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the victim