Right to compensation under section 357 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 not merely the right of the person wronged to recover compensation and the concomitant liability of the wrong doer to pay the compensation, it would also include the paying capacity of the wrong doer : the hon’ble high court of delhi
In a case titled Shish Ram vs. State, Shish Ram shot his own son who died due to haemorrhagic shock consequent upon the firearm injury. He was tried for murder and the learned Trial Court Judge convicted the accused for having murdered his son in cold blood and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine in sum of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
The accused filed an appeal against this order in the Hon’ble High Court. The matter was argued at length by our Managing Trustee Mr. Ajay Garg Advocate from the side of the Complainant. The Hon’ble High Court hence dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and the sentence imposed upon him.
Advocate Ajay Garg moved an application in the said appeal on behalf of the family of the deceased which included his i.e. deceased’s widowed wife and their two children, seeking compensation from the appellant/accused under sub-section 3 and sub-section 4 of Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi stated that Right to compensation of the applicant under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has to be commensurate to the means of the offender for the reason clause (b) of sub- section 1 of Section 357 guides: ‘in the payment to any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused by the offence, when compensation is, in the opinion of the Court, recoverable by such person in a Civil Court.’ It held that, “It would not mean merely the right of the person wronged to recover compensation and the concomitant liability of the wrong doer to pay the compensation; it would also include the paying capacity of the wrong doer.”
The Hon’ble High Court also declared that till the appellant/accused is in prison, the complainant would have a right to continue to receive and appropriate the rent which she is receiving and appropriate from the two immovable properties of the appellant. The Hon’ble Court also held that she would be entitled to receive the rent of one property where she resides and would have a right of residence till she lives.