Criminal Procedure Code

Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra

(2013) 6 SCC 770

Facts

Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad and others encountered the deceased after a dispute involving a dog.
A verbal altercation and scuffle followed.
Gaikwad struck the deceased with an iron pipe.
The injury resulted in death.
The courts below convicted him for murder and imposed sentence.
Before the Supreme Court, questions arose concerning:
the correct degree of criminal liability;
the appropriate sentence;
and the courts’ failure to meaningfully consider compensation for the victim’s family under Section 357 CrPC.
The Supreme Court used the case to examine whether consideration of victim compensation is optional in the sense that courts may simply ignore it. ( )

Whether courts have a duty to apply their mind to compensation under Section 357.
What factors determine quantum.
Whether reasons must be recorded when compensation is awarded or refused.

Section 357(1) permits compensation from the fine imposed.
Section 357(3) permits compensation even where fine is not part of the sentence.
The ultimate award remains discretionary.
However, consideration of compensation is mandatory in every appropriate criminal case involving:
death;
injury;
loss;
or damage.
The court should consider:
nature of harm;
needs of the victim or dependants;
relationship between the offence and loss;
capacity of the accused to pay;
and reasonableness of the amount.
A summary inquiry into paying capacity may be conducted.
Reasons should be recorded for awarding or refusing compensation.
Section 357A separately permits State-funded victim compensation.
BNSS Sections 395 and 396 correspond to Sections 357 and 357A.

The Court observed that criminal sentencing had historically focused heavily on:
the State;
the offender;
and imprisonment, while the victim was often ignored.
Section 357 was enacted to ensure that the criminal court responds to the actual harm caused.
Using the word “may” did not mean that judges could omit the question completely.
The discretion concerns:
whether compensation should ultimately be awarded;
and in what amount.
It does not eliminate the duty to consider.
An arbitrary amount could itself be unjust.
Excessive compensation beyond the accused’s ability may:
become impossible to enforce;
produce further default imprisonment;
and fail to benefit the victim.
Therefore, paying capacity must be assessed.
In the substantive case, the Court found that the occurrence arose suddenly and lacked the premeditation necessary for murder.
It altered the conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The sentencing and compensation questions had to reflect:
the serious fatal consequence;
the nature of the sudden quarrel;
and the offender’s actual circumstances.

The Supreme Court altered the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II and imposed five years’ rigorous imprisonment.
More importantly for CrPC, it held that every criminal court has a mandatory duty to apply its mind to Section 357.
The award may be refused, but reasons should disclose that the victim’s loss and the offender’s paying capacity were considered.
Copies of the judgment were directed to be circulated to criminal courts. ( )