Kuppuraj vs Dhandapani & Ors.

The petitioner''s case is that on 27.05.2004 at about 9.30 a.m. the respondents 1 and 2 / accused due to previous enmity and with common

intention joined together and assaulted the petitioner with sticks and hands and thereby causing injury to him, also assaulted his son Sathish on his

left hand by causing grievous injury to him. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a complaint against the respondents 1 and 2 / accused before the 3rd

respondent police. Based on the same, the 3rd respondent has registered a case in Crime No.39 of 2004 against the respondents 1 and 2 for the

offence under Sections 325, 323. r/w. 34 of IPC and investigated the case. After investigation the 3rd respondent police filed final report on the

file of Judicial Magistrate - II, Puducherry and the same was taken cognizance in C.C.No.488 of 2004 and issued summons to the respondents 1

and 2/ accused. Thereafter on appearance of the accused and issuance of free copies of documents as contemplated under Sections 207 of

Cr.P.C. charges were framed against the accused for the offence under Sections 325, 323 r/w. 34 of IPC.

The respondents 1 and 2 / accused initially pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Subsequently, when the matter was posted for the

appearance of L.Ws, respondents have pleaded guilty of the offences and hence, the Court of the Judicial Magistrate has convicted them U/s. 325,

323 r/w. 34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment till the rising of Court on each count and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each on

each count and in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months each on each count.

It is further case of the petitioner that he had sustained injuries and his son Sathish had sustained fracture of bones, resulted in huge medical

expenses for treatment. That apart the fracture injury has caused permanent disablement to his son. However, the Learned Trial Judge without

considering the grievous nature of the injuries, the permanent disablement caused to his son and the huge expenses incurred imposed

disproportionately lesser punishment on the accused.

Therefore, against above order made in C.C.No.488 of 2004, the petitioner filed a Crl.R.P.No.29 of 2005 before the Court of the III

Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry, praying to revise the sentences imposed on the respondents 1 and 2 and to direct them to pay

compensation for the injuries caused to the petitioner and the grievous injuries and the permanent disability caused to his son.

However, the Learned Additional Sessions Judge without considering the grievances of the petitioner and his son and the gravity of the offences

by taking a very lenient approach as if the charge are petty offences has dismissed the Crl.R.P. and confirmed the order of the trial Court.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

I heard Mr.P.Jotheeswaran for Mr.T.P.Manoharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and M/s.M.N.Sumathy, learned counsel for the

respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.M.R.Thangavel, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), Pondiherry, for the 3rd respondent and perused the

records.

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he and his son Sathish have sustained severe Injuries and infact the petitioner''s son faced

fracture of bones, which resulted in huge medical expenses for treatment. It also caused permanent disablement to his son. However, both the

Courts below without considering the grievous nature of the injuries, the permanent disablement caused to his son and the huge expenses incurred

imposed disproportionately lesser punishment on the accused and further there was no compensation awarded for the disablement and expenses

towards the treatments.

Per Contra, the Respondents 1 and 2 filed counter and the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the incident on 27.05.2004 was

not a pre planned one but has occurred because of the sudden provocation and there was no enmity or vengeance towards the petitioner.

The relevant portion of their Counter affidavit is extracted hereunder:

I submit that the incident on 27.05.2004 was not a pre-planned one but has occurred because of the sudden provocation. Being our relative,

we have no enmity or vengeance towards the petitioner. I submit that both of us are first offenders and we have no mens rea to commit any

offence. It is because we realized our mistake, both myself and the 2nd respondent herein, admitted the offence and pleaded guilty before the

Judicial Magistrate. The Learned Magistrate after considering the facts and circumstances passed the impugned order dated 05.08.2007, which

was upheld by the order of the Sessions judge dated 18.12.2007.

By submitting so, they prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Original Petition contending that the impugned order is well considered one and

does not suffer any illegality.

Undisputedly the respondents 2 and 3 admitting their guilty both before the Trial Court and has also filed an affidavit before this Court to that

effect. Therefore the only question arise before this Court is that as to whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and the respondents 1 and

2 is liable to be pay the same, despite of their defense that the incident occurred due to sudden provocation and without mens rea.

It is needless to say on perusal of the case records that in the instant case the respondents 1 and 2 are prosecuted for the offence by placing

the actual victim, the petitioner alike mere witness. There is no endeavor made by the Learned Judge to redress the plea of compensation.

The Learned Judge having found the accused guilty for the offences under Section 325, 323 r/w 343 IPC sentenced the accused to undergo

imprisonment till the raising of the Court on each count and to pay a fine Rs.500/- each on each count in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment

for 2 months each on each count, which amounted to total fine of Rs.1,000 x 2=Rs 2,000/-, whereas there is no say about the compensation.

The Courts below ought to have found that the petitioner''s claim is liable to be considered and a reasonable amount of compensation is

payable to the complainant by adopting a constructive approach a step forward in a criminal justice system, so as to meet the ends of justice.

There can be no doubt that a direction for payment of compensation to the victim can be issued by a Magistrate under Section 357(3),

Cr.P.C. A direction can be issued for payment of amounts beyond the maximum fine which a Magistrate can impose under Section 29 of the

Cr.P.C. All that can be one is that while fixing the amount of compensation and fine, it is to be done by taking into consideration of the gravity of

injury.

It is significant to note here that in the case of R.Mohan Vs. A.K.Vijayakumar reported in 2012 (3) CCR 85, this Court while emphasizing the

scope and need for award of compensation to victims was pleased to hold as follows:

Power to award compensation is not ancillary to the sentences. It is in addition thereto intended to do something to reassure the victim that he or

she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system.

Coming to the case on hand, in view of the fact that the accused/ respondent admitted their guilt in participation of the offence, resultantly is

responsible for the grievous injuries of the petitioner and his son. Thereupon they are jointly liable to compensate the victim petitioner and his son.

At the same time, though the petitioner prays for a larger relief to revise the sentence imposed by the Learned Trial judge, claiming it to be

disproportionately low, this Court is not inclined to touch upon the same. However there is no doubt that the petitioner is entitled for the loss

suffered.

For the foregoing reasons and in view of the above legal principle on compensation, the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge is set

aside, consequently the order of the Learned Magistrate is modified to the extent that there shall be a direction to the respondents jointly to pay

Rs.20,000/- as compensation payable to the petitioner herein within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this Order. The accused /

respondents 2 and 3 shall deposit the compensation to the credit of C.C.No.488 of 2004 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,

Puducherry, who is directed to pay the said compensation to the petitioner on filing of appropriate application. If the compensation is not paid

within the stipulated time, the respondents shall be called upon to serve a sentence to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months.