Delhi High Court 5-judge bench sets aside earlier guidelines on victim compensation by trial courts

A five-judge bench of the Delhi High Court recently set aside the guidelines issued by a three-Judge Bench in 2020 for assessment and payment of victim compensation by trial courts under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) [Saif Ali @ Sohan Vs. The State GNCT of Delhi]. .Section 357 CrPC empowers trial courts to award compensation to victims of crime. The High Court had in the case of Karan v. State of NCT of Delhi directed Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to submit Victim Impact Report (VIRs) before the trial courts after conviction of accused.However, a need for modification of the procedure arose as VIRs could not be prepared in time, leading to a delay in sentencing the convicts. The convicts could not appeal or apply for bail in the meantime..Setting aside the 2020 guidelines, the Bench of Justices Rekha Palli, Prathiba M Singh, Subramonium Prasad, Saurabh Banerjee and Manoj Jain held that the State Legal Services Authority has no role in passing of orders awarding victim compensation under Section 357 CrPC.In accordance with the scheme of Section 357 CrPC, it is the sole prerogative of the trial court to compute and award victim compensation, it added."The directions requiring the DSLSA to conduct a summary inquiry for determination of victim compensation after conviction of the accused would, in our view, amount to clothing the DSLSA with a power which the legislature does not envisage," the Court ruled..However, while setting aside the guidelines, the larger Bench directed the trial courts to adopt a victim centric approach. It also made it clear that trial courts can seek assistance from the DSLSA as and when it deems necessary. "In determining the compensation, if any, payable, under Section 357, Cr.P.C., the Trial Court may take into account the income and assets of the accused and any other factors as may be deemed appropriate, for which purpose information may be elicited not only from the I.O./prosecuting agency but also from the accused, who will, however, not be asked to make any statement on oath or by way of an affidavit," it added..The Court noted that after the issuance of guidelines, inordinate delay was being caused in passing of orders on sentence and consequently, convicts all across Delhi were made to languish in jail to await the orders on sentence after their conviction."This prolonged detention of the accused, during which he is disabled from exercising his right to file an appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. (Section 415 of the BNSS) would certainly be unjust, unfair and unreasonable. We are, therefore, inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the parties that on account of the mandatory procedure set down under the guidelines, the statutory as well as the fundamental rights of the accused for speedy trial are being violated," it added..The Court also dealt with the argument that asking an accused/convict to file an affidavit disclosing his assets/income, would be against his right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.It said that an accused person can at no stage of the trial be asked to make a statement on oath. However, the Court also agreed with the amicus curiae's submission that Article 20(3) would be applicable only to material which is likely to lead to self-incrimination of the accused."It would, therefore, be permissible to seek information from the accused on oath as may be used only for the purposes of identification or which otherwise has no connection with the charge against him," it added..It opined that list of accused's assets and income cannot be said to be so innocuous so as to not impact him at all.It thus found merit in the plea that the information provided by the accused regarding his financial status may sought to be used by other investigating agencies like the Enforcement Directorate and, therefore, may amount to self-incrimination."We, therefore, have no hesitation in agreeing with the learned counsel for the parties that the direction to the accused/convict to furnish an affidavit detailing his assets and liabilities would be violative of both his constitutional and statutory rights," it ruled..Advocates Kanhaiya Singhal, Prasanna and Anisha Rastogi represented the appellants.Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa served as Amicus Curiae in the case with advocates Prabhav Ralli and Sanskriti Shakuntala Gupta, Advocates Ayush Puri, Sultan Haider Jafri, Kanav Madnani Rajiv Khosla, Amit Sharma, Sunil Singh, Sanjay Dubey also appeared in the matter.Advocates Harsh Prabhakar, Yash Kotak, Pallavi Garg, Annirudh Tanwar, Dhruv Chaudhary, Adeeb Ahmad and Eshita Pallavi for DSLSA. Additional Public Prosecutor Aman Usman appeared for State. Additional Standing Counsel Rupali Bandhopadhya and advocate Abhijeet Kumar also appeared in the matter[Read Judgment]