Let accused pay up if victim wants: SC

The Supreme Court, dealing with two vital criminal jurisprudence questions, in rulings considered unconventional by existing legal standards, held that in a case where punishment with a jail term cannot mitigate the suffering of a victim in economic offences, the accused could be asked to pay compensation to ensure “total justice”.

On the second question, on eyewitnesses in murder cases, the court held that the testimony of witnesses who are close relatives of the victim cannot be “discarded” merely because they might testify against the accused in revenge to ensure he gets harsher punishment.

Answering these questions in two separate judgments, a bench of Justices P. Sathasivam and H.L. Dattu said: “Sometimes the situation becomes such that no purpose is served by keeping a person behind bars. Instead, directing the accused to pay ... compensation to the victim can ensure delivery of total justice.”

The only condition while invoking Section 357(3) CrPC was to see if the accused was in a position to pay compensation. This section empowers courts to impose adequate compensation on the accused for an offence which causes financial loss to the victim.

The bench felt that sending the accused to jail in such cases would be of no help to the victim.