Compensation Orders In Criminal Cases
What Are Compensation Orders in Criminal Cases?
Compensation orders are directions by criminal courts for offenders or the state to pay monetary compensation to victims for harm caused by the crime. These orders aim to:
Provide restitution and relief to victims.
Serve as a part of sentencing or restitution.
Reinforce the restorative justice approach.
Ensure that victims do not suffer financially due to crime.
The power to award compensation can be found under various laws, like the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), Sections 357, 357A, and under Victim Compensation Schemes.
Landmark Cases on Compensation Orders in Criminal Cases
1. State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh, AIR 1983 SC 465
Facts:
A case involving the murder of a victim, and the family sought compensation.
Legal Issue:
Whether courts have the power to award compensation to victims’ families in criminal cases.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that courts have inherent powers under CrPC to order compensation to victims or their families.
Compensation serves justice beyond mere punishment.
Emphasized courts’ responsibility to provide relief to victims.
Significance:
Confirmed judicial power to award compensation alongside criminal sentencing.
Highlighted victim-centric justice.
2. Rashid Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 1525
Facts:
Accused convicted of causing injury; victim sought compensation.
Legal Issue:
Scope of compensation orders under CrPC Section 357.
Judgment:
Compensation can be awarded to cover medical expenses, loss, and suffering.
Amount to be proportionate to injury and means of accused.
Compensation is not an alternative to punishment but in addition.
Significance:
Set guidelines on how compensation should be assessed.
Distinguished between punishment and victim relief.
3. Laxmi v. Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 1264
Facts:
Case of acid attack on the victim; Supreme Court dealt with victim compensation.
Legal Issue:
Responsibility of State and offenders to compensate acid attack victims.
Judgment:
Court directed strict compensation orders for acid attack victims.
Emphasized State’s obligation under Article 21 (right to life with dignity).
Directed comprehensive victim compensation including medical treatment, rehabilitation, and loss.
Significance:
Strengthened State’s role in compensation.
Highlighted compensation as essential to victim dignity.
4. Ramdular v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2014 SC 1086
Facts:
Victim’s family sought compensation after the accused was convicted.
Legal Issue:
When and how compensation orders should be issued.
Judgment:
Court held that compensation should be awarded during sentencing or separately.
Court may rely on victim compensation schemes.
Compensation order is integral to criminal justice system.
Significance:
Clarified procedure and timing for compensation orders.
Encouraged use of victim compensation funds.
5. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 SC 1960
Facts:
Death of a minor in police custody; family sought compensation.
Legal Issue:
Compensation for custodial death under Article 21.
Judgment:
Supreme Court awarded compensation for custodial death as a violation of fundamental rights.
Compensation seen as a remedy for State’s failure to protect life.
Courts recognized compensation as a constitutional remedy.
Significance:
Established compensation as a tool to enforce constitutional rights.
Set precedent for compensation in State liability cases.
6. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011
Facts:
Sexual harassment case where compensation was sought for the victim.
Legal Issue:
Can courts award compensation in cases of sexual harassment/assault?
Judgment:
Court recognized compensation as a remedy to restore victims’ dignity.
Directed compensation in sexual harassment and violence cases.
Encouraged proactive steps by employers and State.
Significance:
Extended compensation to gender-based violence cases.
Reinforced victim rights in criminal justice.
Summary Table
| Case | Year | Principle on Compensation Orders |
|---|---|---|
| State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh | 1983 | Courts have inherent power to award compensation in criminal cases |
| Rashid Ahmed v. UP | 1978 | Compensation covers injury, suffering, and medical expenses |
| Laxmi v. Union of India | 2014 | State and offenders must compensate acid attack victims |
| Ramdular v. MP | 2014 | Compensation integral to sentencing, can rely on victim funds |
| Nilabati Behera v. Orissa | 1993 | Compensation for custodial deaths under Article 21 |
| Vishaka v. Rajasthan | 1997 | Compensation for sexual harassment and violence cases |
Conclusion
Compensation orders are vital in delivering justice to victims alongside punishment of offenders.
Courts have wide discretionary power to order compensation, ensuring relief to victims.
Compensation can address medical costs, loss, rehabilitation, and dignity.
Landmark rulings have expanded compensation’s scope to include custodial deaths, acid attacks, sexual violence, and general criminal injuries.
Victim Compensation Schemes complement court orders and ensure systematic support for victims.
RELATED Blog
0 comments