Skip to main content

HC: Sec. 357 A (4) Cr.P.C. is substantive; hence compensation is to be given to victims of crimes committed before its enactment

 In a landmark ruling Kerala High Court recently held that the provisions of Section 357A(1)(4) & (5) Cr.P.C are substantive in nature, hence the victims have a right to receive compensation for the crimes that were committed before the provisions of the above stated section came into play.


Case of the Petitioner


The Senior government pleader contended that the direction given to the State Government to pay compensation to the victims under Section 357(4)(A) Cr.PC., for a crime that took place on 26.03.2008, taking into consideration the amended provision, bough into effect on 31.12.2009 and based on an application of the year 2013, is completely unjustifiable and is against the statutory provisions.


Furthermore it was contended by the State pleader that the application of the above stated section cannot be retrospective in nature, as the retrospective effect of the provision will make the State face the unwanted financial brunt and the same will result in intrusion with the economic set up of the State.


Case of the Respondents

Respondents 2 to 4 are the legal heirs of one late Sri. Sivadas who died in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 26.03.2008. Though the crime was taken into cognizance by the police, however the accused could not be found or traced and therefore the trial could not commence.


In 2013, the legal heirs approached to the District Legal Services Authority, Alappuzha, in the want of compensation from the State under Section 357A (4) Cr.PC. Thereafter an enquiry was done as per the provision under Section 357A (5) Cr.P.C., and the report was submitted on 12.09.2013 on the basis of which it was inferred that an amount of Rs.3,03,000/- was suffice compensation to be awarded in the present case to the dependants of the late Sri Sivadas.


Observation of the Court

In the words of the Court:


“With the advent of the philosophy of victim compensation, with its avowed purpose not to award damages analogous to those in cases of tortuous liability, but to give solace, by way of compensation out of the public purse, for the injury sustained, whether the offender has been bought to the trial or not, a new stakeholder, in the criminal law was ushered in.”


“By giving the benefit to the victims under Section 357A (4)Cr.P.C., for crimes that occurred prior to 31.12.2009, the statutory provision is not given retrospective effect, and instead a prospective benefit is given based on an antecedent fact.”


The Court vividly stated that the compensation that is to be awarded under Section 357 is punitive in nature and the compensation that is to be awarded under Section 357A is based on the concept of rehabilitation of the victim. The Court denied the submissions of the State pleader pertaining to amendment and stated that the amendment does not mention anything with respect to the applicability of the Section that the same should be retrospective prospective.


Notably, the Court said,


“When an application is made by a victim of a crime that occurred prior to the coming into force of Section357 (A)(4) Cr.P.C., a prospective benefit is given, taking into reckoning an antecedent fact. Adopting such an interpretation does not make the statue or the provision retrospective in operation. It only confers prospective benefits, in certain cases, to even antecedent facts. The State will remain prospective in application but will draw life from a past event also.”


Case Details


Before: Kerala High Court


Case Title: District Collector Alappuzha and others


Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas

.


LEXIS AND COMPANY

"ADVOCATES AND LEGAL CONSULTANTS"

We are India’s Leading Law Firm

“The firm has always strives to create and implement innovative and effective methods of providing cost-effective, quality representation and services for our clients and will continue to meet and exceed the expectations of our valued clients.”


–    DR ANUPAM KUMAR MISHRA (ADVOCATE, FOUNDER-LEXIS AND COMPANY).


Get in Touch


LEXIS AND COMPANY.

C/O: DR ANUPAM KUMAR MISHRA.

OFFICE: A1B/26, JANAKPURI, GROUND FLOOR,

NEW DELHI,, DELHI, 110058.

INDIA.

lexisandcompany@gmail.com

CALL: +91-9830333388.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

LAW INTERNSHIP AND TRAINEE OPPORTUNITY

  LAW INTERNSHIP AND TRAINEE OPPORTUNITY: LEXIS AND COMPANY, renowned for its excellence in the legal field, is thrilled to announce an exceptional internship and trainee opportunity for aspiring final year law students and newly enrolled Advocates. This highly coveted internship  and trainee opportunity  is a paid position, providing a remarkable platform for career growth and experiential learning in a corporate environment. Eligibility: Only for final year Students and Newly Enrolled Advocates. We are offering a limited number of vacancies, designed for law students and newly enrolled advocates in the dynamic world of the legal profession. This is an immediate joining opportunity, available to candidates who are interested to work in the area of commercial and civil litigation and have interest towards drafting, and legal research. As a team member at  LEXIS AND COMPANY,  you will refine your research and drafting skills while witnessing the meticulous professional conduct expected
Post a Comment
Read more

The Doctrine of Alternative Danger

  THE DOCTRINE OF ALTERNATIVE DANGER Although the plaintiff is supposed to be cautious in spite of the defendant’s Negligence, there can also be certain situations when the plaintiff is justified in taking some threat where some unsafe state of affairs has been created by way of the defendant. The plaintiff may appear as puzzled or worried through a hazardous state of affairs created via the defendant and to store his man or woman or property, or now and again to store a third party from such danger, he may take a choice risk. The law, therefore, lets in the plaintiff to come across a choice danger to shop by himself from the chance created via the defendant. If the path adopted by him results in some harm to himself, his motion in opposition to the defendant will now not fail. The judgment of the plaintiff, however, is not rash. The position can be defined by means of the case of Jones v . Boyce . In that case, the plaintiff used to be a passenger in the defendant’s train and instruct
Post a Comment
Read more

Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1)

   Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1) --- PLEASE READ THE COMPLETE JOB DESCRIPTION BEFORE APPLYING ---   Urgent Hiring for: LAW STUDENTS/CS STUDENTS/ FRESHER LAW GRADUATES/ FRESHER CS. Position: Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1) Department: Legal. Firm Name: LEXIS AND COMPANY – LAW FIRM. Location: Janakpuri, New Delhi. CTC: RS 5000/- Per Month. Additional Allowance: All official expenses including travelling allowance for official purposes will be paid from the day 1 of the service with the firm.   We are urgently looking for LAW STUDENTS / CS STUDENTS / FRESHER LAW GRADUATES / FRESHER CS for the position of Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1) for our Law Firm in Janakpuri, New Delhi.   Eligibility: Mandatory Qualification: Any LAW STUDENTS / CS STUDENTS / FRESHER LAW GRADUATES / FRESHER CS who wants to learn as a beginner. Desired Qualification: Any additional qualification  will be pre
Post a Comment
Read more