Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Sh. Karnail Chand vs State Through Sho on 16 May, 2023
S. No. 8
Supp Cause List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Crl R No. 44/2019
CrLM No. 681/2019 CrLM No. 1412/2019
Reserved on: 10.04.2023
Pronounced on: 16 .05.2023
1. Sh. Karnail Chand S/o Paras Ram age 44 years. ...Petitioner(s)
2. Sh. Sohan Lal S/o Paras Ram age 34 years.
3. Sh. Gara Ram S/o Sh. Kashmiru Ram age 36
years.
4. Sh. Tej Ram S/o Paras Ram age 42 years.
5. Sh. Pooran Chand S/o Booti Ram age 62 years.
6. Sh. Krishan Chand S/o Maluka Ram age 67
years.
7. Sh. Rattan Lal S/o Kashmiru Ram age 46 years.
All residents of village Jaswal Mandal, District
Samba.
Through: Ms Padmaja Vemuri Lal, Advocate.
Vs.
1. State through SHO, Parmandal, Bari-Brahmana, ...Respondent(s)
District Samba.
2. Sh. Noor Hussain,
S/o Sh. Dalbir Hussain,
Resident of village Jaswal Mandal, District
Samba.
Through: Mr Vishal Bharti, Dy.AG.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAN LAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioners/accused were tried in FIR No. 26/2011 bearing challan No.
26/challan for commission of offences under Section 436/147/148
RPC by the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge Samba (for
short „the Trial Court‟) whereby, the trial Court dismissed the challan
and acquitted petitioners/accused for the charges attributed to them in
terms of impugned judgment dated 12.11.2018, however, the learned
trial Court vide impugned judgment directed each of the
petitioners/accused to pay compensation to the complainant at the rate
of Rs. 20,000/- each (totaling Rs. 140,000/-).
2. Petitioners/accused have assailed the impugned judgment of the trial
Court dated 12.11.2018 only to the extent of payment of
compensation on the grounds, that the impugned judgment of the trial
Court burdening petitioners/accused with the compensation even after
their acquittal is bad and impermissible in law as the trial Court has
exceeded its jurisdiction conferred upon it in terms of Section 357
CrPC, the trial Court has misdirected itself in understanding the scope
of Section 357 CrPC which mandates that the trial Court is
empowered to impose sentence of fine and award compensation only
when the accused has been held guilty convicted and sentenced
accordingly, as the petitioners/accused have been acquitted by the
trial Court and there is no question of payment of the compensation by
them to the victim which is only the duty of the State under Section
357-A CrPC to pay compensation to the victim.
3. In terms of order of this Court dated 17.11.2021 learned AAG, sought
time to file objections but thereafter respondent No. 1 chose not to file
the objections and adduced arguments in the revision petition. The
prosecution story in brief against petitioners/accused is, that
complainant namely Noor Hussain on 18.09.2011 lodged report with
SHO Police Station Purmandal (Samba) to the effect that
petitioners/accused in the form of unlawful assemble with their
common object trespassed into his shop and damaged the goods inside
the shop and set the shop on fire. On the said complaint case FIR no.
26/2011 for commission of offences under Sections 436/147/148 RPC
was registered in Police Station Purmandal Samba, which after usual
investigation culminated in the production of charge sheet against
petitioners/accused before the trial Court for commission of offences
under sections 436/147 RPC. Charges were framed against the
petitioners/accused vide order of the trial Court dated 30.01.2011,
wherein petitioners/accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial,
whereby, prosecution examined as many as seven (07) witnesses out
of listed 10. After the appraisal of the depositions of prosecution
witnesses, learned trial court vide its judgment dated 12.11.2018
acquitted all the petitioners/accused from the charges attributed to
them for commission of offences under Section 436/147 RPC, but
while acquitting all the petitioners/accused the learned trial Court
directed each of the petitioners/accused to pay compensation in the
sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant (totaling Rs. 1,40,000/-) while
remaining compensation amount of Rs. 30,000/- was to be paid by
the State as compensation to the complainant/Victim.
4. The core question which falls for consideration before this court is,
"whether in case of acquittal of an accused, in terms of Section 357
CrPC the accused can be directed to pay compensation to the
complainant ?" In this regard Hon‟ble Supreme Court in its judgment
reported in 2018(15) Supreme Court Cases 139 [Satyendra Kumar
Mehra Vs. State of Jharkhand] while discussing the object and
purpose of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in regard to
payment of compensation to the complainant/victim in Para 34 of the
judgment held as under: -
34. The object and purpose of Section 356 CrPC
was considered by this Court in Hari Singh V.
Sukhbir Singh.
This Court held that the power given to the court to
direct for payment of compensation is intended to
do something for the victim. The provision was
held to be a step forward in our criminal justice
system. The following were the observations made
in paragraph 10:
10........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 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."
5. Ratio of the judgment (supra) makes the legal proposition abundantly
clear, that Section 357 CrPC empowers the Court to award
compensation to the victims only while passing judgment of
conviction. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused has
vehemently argued, that where the trial Court passes a judgment of
acquittal, Section 357 CrPC does not empower the trial Court to direct
payment of compensation to be paid by the accused persons. Ratio
decidendi of the judgment (supra) squarely applies to the case of
petitioners/accused and the arguments propounded by the learned
counsel for the petitioners/accused. In light of the ratio of the
judgment (supra) the trial Court can award compensation to the victim
only when it passes a judgment of conviction. In the case in hand, the
petitioners/accused have been acquitted by the trial Court by holding
that no offence has been established against them by the prosecution,
there could be no occasion for the trial Court and even Section 357
CrPC does not empower the trial Court to order the payment of
compensation to be paid by the petitioners/accused to the victim in
case of judgment of acquittal.
6. In view of the aforesaid matter, it appears that trial Court has
misdirected itself while discussing the scope and object of Section 357
CrPC and landed in error in passing direction to the
petitioners/accused for payment of compensation to the victim.
Therefore, petition is allowed and impugned judgment of the trial
Court dated 18.11.2011 to the extent of direction for payment of
compensation by the petitioners/accused to the victim/complainant
stands hereby set aside/quashed.
7. Disposed of.
(MOHAN LAL)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
16.05.2023
Ishaq
Whether the judgment is speaking ? Yes/No
Whether the judgment is reportable ? Yes/No
