Accused cannot be asked to pay victim compensation under Section 357A CrPC; compensation payment cannot be ground for bail: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court on Thursday made pertinent observations regarding the grant of compensation to victims of crimes under Section Section 357A (dealing with the formulation of a victim compensation scheme) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). (Sumit Kumar Shaw and ors v. The State of Jharkhand and anr).The Court clarified that an accused person cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation to a victim, particularly given that his guilt or innocence is yet to be proven. To do so would run counter to both the CrPC as well as the basic principle of criminal jurisprudence that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty..Justice Ananda Sen reasoned:."... if at the stage of grant of bail or at any stage prior to pronouncement of judgment, the Court directs the accused to pay compensation to the victim, then, ultimately, if the accused is acquitted holding him to be innocent, then, by virtue of the order of the Court, an innocent person, who has not committed the offence will be forced to pay the compensation. This is not what the law provides for... to direct an accused to pay any compensation or victim compensation under Section 357A of the Code at the stage of bail by terming it as a condition of bail also may amount to prejudging the guilt of an accused and such a course of action runs completely contrary to the basic principle of criminal jurisprudence, i.e., presumption of innocence until proven guilty.".The Court noted that if the accused person is ultimately acquitted, and told to recover the amount paid by him earlier as compensation on the court's order, it would give rise to unnecessary litigation and also "cause undue and uncalled for harassment and hardship to the victim, who by that time, may have utilized the entire money.".Notably, the Court added that voluntary undertakings by accused persons to pay victims compensation should not be a ground for the grant of bail as in such an event, "there will be persons with criminal intent in their mind, who will be roaming in the society with a knife in one hand and a purse full of money in another.".The Court summed up its findings on the issue thus:The Court cannot quantify and fix the amount of victim compensation under Section 357A, CrPC. The Court can only recommend payment of compensation, which has to be quantified after adjudging the adequacy of the same, by the State or District Legal Services Authority after a proper enquiry.A Court, at any stage of trial, even at the stage of grant of bail, or even after conclusion of trial, can recommend payment of victim compensation under Section 357A, CrPC.The amount of victim compensation payable under Section 357A, CrPC has to be paid from the fund created for the purpose by the State only and an accused cannot be directed to pay victim compensation..Court has a recommendatory role, cannot fix amount of victim's compensation directly.Pertinently, as per Section 357A, CrPC as well as the scheme framed by the Jharkhand government under the provision for granting victims compensation, it is the State or District Legal Services Authority that can fix the quantum of compensation. .A Court can only recommend the payment of such compensation, the quantum of which has to be determined by the Legal Services Authority, the High Court said. ."Directly quantifying the amount by a Court and giving direction to make payment of victim compensation, according to me, will go against the provision of Section 357A itself. This means the statutory provision of inquiry is being done away with", Justice Sen said. .State has to compensate the victim, not the accused.The High Court further noted that once the identity of a victim has been established and it is found that he/ she has suffered loss and needs rehabilitation, the victim would be eligible to receive compensation. However, the responsibility to pay the compensation falls on the State, the Judge pointed out. ."As per Section 357A of the Code and the Scheme, even if the accused is not identified or he is discharged or acquitted, the victim is entitled to get compensation from the fund, which is created by the State. In other words, it is the State, who has to compensate the victim", said the judgment. .In this regard, the Judge further noted that neither Section 357A, CrPC nor the government's scheme for victim compensation provides that an accused has to make payment of compensation. "The entire scheme provides that the compensation has to be paid from a fund, which is so created by the State. So far as the State of Jharkhand is concerned, a fund has been created by the State with a yearly budgetary allocation", it was noted..As such, if a court feels that a victim should be given interim relief, it can recommend the payment of victim compenstation under Section 357A, CrPC. There is no embargo on making such a recommendation, the Court ruled. "... at any stage of the proceeding, including at the stage of considering bail application, the Court can recommend payment of victim compensation by way of interim measure, to the victim", read the judgment. .In any case, the payment would come from the State, the High Court ruled. In this regard, the judgment stated:"The Court has power to recommend payment of victim compensation under Section 357A of the Code at any stage of the trial, even after conviction, and any compensation recommended to be paid by invoking Section 357A of the Code, has to be paid from the fund, so created.".Payment of victim compensation cannot be a consideration for grant of bail.The Judge went on to emphasise that even if accused volunteers to pay compensation, the same cannot be of any consideration at all for the grant of bail. He highlighted that if such payment becomes a consideration for the grant of bail, not only would it be against the law, but it would also have a catastrophic effect on criminal justice administration.."In that event, there will be persons with criminal intent in their mind, who will be roaming in the society with a knife in one hand and a purse full of money in another. Thus, any submission on behalf of the accused volunteering to pay compensation to the victim, in lieu of grant of bail, should not, at all, be considered by the Court", the Court said. .In view of these observations, the High Court proceeded to set aside a condition set by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi for the accused in a cheating case to pay Rs 1 lakh as compensation to the victim as a condition for the grant of anticipatory bail. .In this case, the High Court also took note that "cheating" is not an offence that has been included in the State Government's schedule on the list of offences for which victim's compensation is payable. .The anticipatory bail itself was found to have been grounded on other relevant reasons, and, therefore, not set aside..[Read Judgment]