NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it has sent a clear message to high courts and lower courts that a person convicted of a crime cannot be released with a reduced sentence on agreeing to financially compensate the victim, and such compensation cannot be considered equivalent to or substitute for punishment. A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi said undue sympathy with the accused while imposing inadequate punishment would harm society and erode public confidence in the justice system. She expressed concern over the “misunderstanding” of various high courts in dealing with compensation as an alternative to punishment. “The compensation owed to the victim is only compensatory in nature, and cannot be considered equivalent to or substitute for punishment.
Justice Bishnoi, who penned the judgement, said the punishment is punitive in nature and the aim is to create adequate deterrence against the said crime and to send a social message to the miscreants that any violation of the moral norms of society will entail consequences, which cannot be bought with money alone. The bench set aside the Madras High Court order that reduced the three-year imprisonment in an attempt to murder case to the sentence imposed (two months), after the two convicts agreed to pay Rs 50,000 each to the victim.
It said the Supreme Court acted in defiance of the law and misrepresented established criminal jurisprudence in reaching its conclusion. “The consideration to be taken into account while imposing punishment is to ensure that the punishment should not be too harsh, but at the same time, it should not be so lenient as to undermine its deterrent effect…The aim of punishment is not to seek revenge for the crime, but it is an attempt to rebuild the damaged social fabric of the society in order to put the wheel back on the right track,” the bench said. The Supreme Court said the provision of compensation has its roots in victimology, which recognizes victims as “the primary sufferers of crime” and advocates the idea of providing some relief from suffering. “The rationale behind victim compensation is to rehabilitate the victim for the loss and injury suffered as a direct result of the crime or offense and not to absolve the offender/accused of his or her guilt.
The practice of enhancing the compensation owed to the victim and commuting the sentence, especially in cases of serious crimes, is dangerous because it may send the wrong message to society that perpetrators/accused persons can absolve themselves of their responsibility merely by paying a monetary consideration. “The misapprehension of various courts in treating compensation as an alternative to punishment is a matter of concern and a practice that must be condemned,” the apex court said, adding that it had observed a “trend” at the top to reduce sentences passed by lower courts “in a capricious and mechanical manner, without any clear application of judicial mind.”
