2010 (5) TMI 392 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction, Increases Compensation

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence against the accused, modifying the compensation amount to require an additional Rs. 3 lakhs payment. ... Whether in default of payment of compensation ordered under section 357(3) of the Cr.PC a default sentence can be imposed? Held that:- SLP partly allowed. The contention of the accused as regards a factual error made by the High Court, wherein the High Court stated that the accused had deposited ₹ 1 lakh towards the compensation amount requires to be accepted. It is to be noted that the accused has already deposited ₹ 2 lakhs towards the compensation amount of ₹ 5 lakhs, before the Judicial Magistrate in pursuance of orders passed by the Sessions Court and the High Court. Therefore, the appeal of the accused, i.e., Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 334 of 2008 is allowed to the extent that he needs to pay a further amount of ₹ 3 lakhs towards the compensation amount of ₹ 5 lakhs. The remaining part of the sentence passed by the High Court requires to be confirmed. In the result, the conviction and sentence passed against the accused in Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 334 of 2008 are confirmed with the modification. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the default sentence for non-payment of compensation under Section 357(3) of the Cr. PC.2. Factual error regarding the amount deposited by the accused towards compensation.3. Appropriateness of the sentence imposed on the accused.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Default Sentence for Non-Payment of Compensation under Section 357(3) of the Cr. PC:The main question to be decided was whether a default sentence can be imposed for non-payment of compensation ordered under Section 357(3) of the Cr. PC. The court examined various provisions and previous judgments to conclude that a default sentence can indeed be imposed. The court noted that Section 357 empowers courts to direct the accused to pay compensation to the victim, and such compensation is recoverable as if it were a fine under Sections 421 and 431 of the Cr. PC. The court cited several precedents, including Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, Balraj v. State of U.P., Hari Kishan v. Sukhbir Singh, and Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd., to support its view that compensation can be enforced through a default sentence. The court emphasized that the purpose of Section 357(3) is to ensure that victims receive compensation, and a default sentence is a necessary enforcement mechanism.2. Factual Error Regarding the Amount Deposited by the Accused Towards Compensation:The accused contended that there was a factual error in the High Court's judgment, which stated that only Rs. 1 lakh had been deposited towards the compensation amount, whereas Rs. 2 lakhs had actually been deposited. The Supreme Court accepted this contention, noting that the accused had indeed deposited Rs. 2 lakhs in compliance with interim orders from the Sessions Court and the High Court. Consequently, the court modified the High Court's order to reflect that the accused needs to pay an additional Rs. 3 lakhs to meet the total compensation amount of Rs. 5 lakhs.3. Appropriateness of the Sentence Imposed on the Accused:The complainant argued that the sentence imposed on the accused was minimal and did not serve the purpose of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Supreme Court, however, found no reason to interfere with the quantum of the sentence imposed by the High Court. The High Court had modified the sentence to require the accused to undergo imprisonment only till the rising of the court if he paid the remaining compensation amount within five months, failing which he would undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The Supreme Court upheld this modification, emphasizing that the sentence was appropriate given the facts and circumstances of the case.Conclusion:The Supreme Court confirmed the conviction and sentence passed against the accused with a modification regarding the compensation amount. The accused was required to pay an additional Rs. 3 lakhs towards the compensation amount. The court dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant, finding no justification to enhance the sentence imposed by the High Court. The judgment clarified the enforceability of compensation orders under Section 357(3) of the Cr. PC through default sentences, thereby ensuring that victims are not deprived of their due compensation.