Restitution To Victims Of Crime
Restitution refers to the court-ordered payment by an offender to the victim for the harm caused by the criminal conduct. It is a principle of restorative justice that seeks to make the victim whole by compensating them for losses directly resulting from the crime. Restitution may include compensation for medical bills, lost income, repair or replacement of property, funeral expenses, and sometimes emotional or psychological treatment.
It is distinct from compensation provided by the state (which may not require a conviction) and from civil damages (which result from civil lawsuits).
⚖️ Legal Basis of Restitution
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973 (India):
Section 357: Empowers the court to order the offender to pay compensation to the victim.
Section 357A: Provides for the Victim Compensation Scheme, where the state compensates victims.
International Perspective:
United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power (1985): Recognizes restitution as a right of the victim.
✅ Key Principles of Restitution:
Must be directly related to the crime.
Usually follows a conviction or guilty plea.
Should be fair, reasonable, and proportionate.
Can be enforced like a civil judgment.
📚 Important Case Laws with Detailed Explanations
1. Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 6 SCC 770
Facts:
The appellant was convicted under Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder). The trial court sentenced him but did not consider the issue of compensation to the victim.
Issue:
Can the appellate court direct compensation even if the trial court did not?
Held:
The Supreme Court held that Section 357(3) CrPC makes it mandatory for courts to apply their mind to the question of compensation.
It emphasized the duty of courts to consider restitution as a part of sentencing.
The Court directed that compensation be paid to the victim even though it was not originally ordered.
Significance:
This case made it clear that restitution is not optional.
It strengthened victim rights and directed courts to actively consider compensation.
2. Suresh v. State of Haryana (2015) 2 SCC 227
Facts:
The appellant was convicted under various sections including 376 (rape). The trial court awarded punishment but did not order compensation.
Issue:
Was the omission to grant compensation proper?
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that victims, especially of sexual offences, are entitled to restitution and compensation.
It emphasized that courts must give reasons if they decide not to award compensation.
The Court also referred to Section 357A CrPC, underlining the State’s duty to compensate victims.
Significance:
Reinforced victim-centric approach.
Recognized the psychological and emotional harm in addition to physical damage.
3. State of Karnataka v. Makkapati Krishna (1994) 4 SCC 123
Facts:
The accused had caused economic loss through criminal breach of trust. The trial court had not passed an order for restitution.
Held:
The Supreme Court directed the payment of restitution equal to the loss caused to the victim.
It observed that when property or money is involved, restoration is essential to ensure that justice is served in full.
Significance:
This case clarified that monetary loss is to be compensated through restitution.
Helped shape judicial thinking about financial harm.
4. Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh (1988) 4 SCC 551
Facts:
In a case of grievous hurt, the court imposed imprisonment but no compensation to the injured party.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the criminal court should exercise its power under Section 357(3) CrPC liberally.
It ruled that fine or imprisonment alone is not sufficient, especially when there is physical harm or loss.
Significance:
One of the earliest landmark decisions that gave interpretative strength to restitution under CrPC.
Established the principle that restitution enhances the rehabilitative function of punishment.
5. K.A. Abbas v. Sabu Joseph & Anr. (2010) 6 SCC 230
Facts:
This was a case involving motor vehicle accident and rash and negligent driving, which led to death. The compensation by the criminal court was in issue.
Held:
Supreme Court reiterated that the compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC is separate from civil liability.
Ordered that compensation must be awarded as a form of criminal restitution, even if the victim can pursue civil remedies separately.
Significance:
Clarified the co-existence of criminal restitution and civil compensation.
Emphasized moral and legal obligation of courts to provide relief.
📝 Conclusion
Restitution is now being recognized as a core component of justice, not merely a supplementary relief. Courts are increasingly conscious of the rights of victims, treating restitution not as charity but as entitlement. The key themes emerging from case law are:
Restitution must be actively considered.
It can be ordered at all stages: trial, appeal, or revision.
The quantum of restitution must be fair and just, considering both victim loss and offender’s capacity.
⚖️ The direction is clear:
Justice is not complete unless the victim is made whole.
RELATED Blog
0 comments