Rahul Kumar

272 Posts


Reader Blogs are not moderated, Jagran is not responsible for the views, opinions and content posted by the readers.
blogid : 8093 postid : 1124327


Posted On 20 Dec, 2015 Others में

  • SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

I have examined compensation laws enshrined under the Code Of Criminal Procedure,1973 in the course of discussion about compensation laws on facebook with Hon’ble Dr Umapathy BE Sir,IPS,Retired DGP of Karnataka.
Discussion reached me to the Conclusion that a falsely implicated accused is also a victim and he is entitled for compensation available for victims under sections 357,357A and 359 of the CrPC.
My Conclusion after discussion with him is reproduced below-
While considering about Victim’s Compensation under sections 357, 357A and 359 of the CrPC,we forget to consider the Innocent Accused Compensation who is also a victim.
In view of definition of victim u/s 2(wa) of the CrPC,an accused implicated without reasonable cause is also a victim.If an accused is implicated without reasonable cause and after being proved so,then the position becomes change.Now the accused becomes victim and alleged victim becomes accused.
There is no bar u/s 357,357A and 359 CrPC to treat the accused implicated without reasonable cause as a victim.Accused who has suffered loss or injury as a result of implication without reasonable cause is a victim.
I have not read about a single case where accused implicated without reasonable cause was compensated u/s 357,357A or 359 CrPC.We have discussed earlier about three recent judgements of the Supreme Court ruling to compensate u/s 357 and 357A CrPC but these rulings are confined only for such victims or their guardian or legal heir who are informant or complainant.These rulings are-
1. Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad vs State of Maharashtra,SLP(Criminal) No.6287 of 2011,reported as (2013) 6 SSC 770,ruled on 03/05/2013.It was the first landmark judgement ruling to compensate victim u/s 357A CrPC.In this judgement the court directed each lower court to consider compensating victim and also directed to send the judgement to each High Court for its implementation.
2. Suresh and Anr vs State of Haryana,Criminal Appeal No.420/2012 decided on 28th Nov 2014.This judgement was referred by him.This judgement also directed subordinate courts to compensate u/s 357A CrPC.
3. Manohar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan and Ors ,Criminal Appeal No.99 of 2015 arising out of SLP(Crl) No.1491 of 2012 decided on dt 16/01/2015.In this judgement the court ruled the importance of section 357 CrPC along with citing importance of section 357A CrPC.
The implementation of these judgements by the lower courts and High Courts is far distant.
We also discussed that now court should consider provisions enshrined under sections 250 CrPC,358 CrPC and 359 CrPC.Section 250 CrPC provides compensation for accusation without reasonable cause,section 358 CrPC provides compensation to persons groundlessly arrested and section 359 CrPC provides compensation to the complainant in non-cognizance cases which is levied from convicted in addition to the penalty. Section 358 CrPC provides compensation only of one thousand rupees.This amount needs to be increased.
Now it’s time for an accused implicated without reasonable cause to move the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court ought to interpret the broad meaning of victim and direct to pay compensation u/s 357 or 357A or 359 CrPC or all to the accused by treating him a victim.
Section 250 CrPC applies only in warrant-cases triable by Magistrates under Chapter XIX of the CrPC but there is no bar of applicability of sections 357 and 357A CrPC and both apply in all cases i.e. session trial,warrant-cases and sommons-cases but section 359 CrPC can be applied only in non-cognizable cases.
There appears similarity in between section 357(1)(a) CrPC and Section 359 CrPC.But section 357(1)(a) CrPC seems to also include recovery of prosecution expenses suffered by the Court from the offender whereas section 359 CrPC only provides recovery of prosecution expenses suffered by the victim from the offender in non-cognizable cases.It is better to recover prosecution expenses of falsely implicated accused under section 359 CrPC than section 357(1)(a) CrPC because offender of making false charges shall be tried under section 182 IPC (in case of false information submitted only before police) and section 211 IPC (in case of false charges made before the court) and both sections are non-cognizable.However,falsely implicated accused is entitled for compensation recoverable from the offender u/s 357(1)(b) CrPC for any loss or injury suffered by him,which is in addition to prosecution expenses. Similarly,a falsely implicated accused is entitled for compensation by state government u/s 357A(1) /(2)/(3) CrPC for his rehabilitation.
We have also discussed about Dr Ram Lakhan Singh Case,Retired IFS officer of Uttarpradesh Govt after link sent by him.In Writ Petition(Civil) No.933 of 2014,Dr Ram Lakhan Singh vs State of Uttarpradesh decided on 17 November 2015,the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution directed to pay Rs 10 Lakhs to him due to implicating him falsely by Govt mechanism. Supreme Court U/A 32 and High Courts U/A 226 and u/s 482 CrPC had have been compensating falsely implicated accused.The Supreme Court and High Courts have not directed till now in any case to compensate falsely implicated accused u/s 357,357A or 359 CrPC while exercising its appellate or original jurisdiction.Most of accused reach to the High Courts and Supreme Court through appellate jurisdiction,for which High Court can direct to pay compensation to falsely implicated accused u/s 357(4) CrPC and u/s 359(2) CrPC and same power may be exercised by the Supreme Court while hearing appeal U/A 136 of the Constitution.Above three judgements of the Supreme Court directing to pay compensation to victims have been passed by exercising appellate jurisdiction.If the Supreme Court or High Courts while exercising appellate jurisdiction or original jurisdiction direct to pay compensation to the falsely implicated accused under sections 357,357A or 359 CrPC or
all,then it shall pave the way for a falsely implicated accused to demand compensation under these sections even from the Lower Courts because lower courts can direct to pay compensation only under sections 357,357A or 359 CrPC,not u/s 482 CrPC or U/A 32 or U/A 226 of the Constitution.
Saket Kumar, Rangnath Mishra and 10 others like this.

Umapathy BE
Umapathy BE Highly recommended for all those who got victimized by Police, on behest of NETHAJIs.
Those fodder scam accused IAS officers, who are languishing in Jail; I dedicate this WELLRESEARCHED POST OF MR. RAHULKUMAR. PARADOX, is by proxy Lalu is ruling Bihar through SONS.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · December 7 at 12:05pm · Edited

Rahul Kumar replied · 3 Replies
Rahul Kumar

Rahul Kumar Section 357 of the CrPC has been amended vide State Amendments by the State of Bihar,Madhyapradesh,Rajasthan and Uttarpradesh.These states have made mandatory to compensate Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes u/s 357 CrPC for crime committed against them. All Offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 are cognizable.Accordingly Offences of falsely implicating and producing false evidences against member of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes i.e. Sections 3(1)(viii),3(1)(ix),3(2)(i) and 3(2)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 will not be considered for compensation u/s 359 CrPC.However,provision of section 359 CrPC is also available u/s 357(1)(a) CrPC. Section 3(1)(viii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 is similar to section 211 IPC,section 3(1)(ix) of the Act is similar to section 182 IPC,Section 3(2)(i) of the Act is similar to section 194 IPC and section 3(2)(ii) of the Act is similar to section 195 IPC. Sections of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 are cognizable whereas sections 182,211,194 and 195 IPC including sections 193 and 196 IPC which also relate to producing false evidences are non-cognizable.What i have stated earlier about procedure of compensation under sections 182 and 211 IPC shall apply accordingly for sections 193,194,195 and 196 IPC. Offences of making false allegations by producing false evidences are committed in many cases by threatening any third person to give false evidence,which is a cognizable offence u/s 195A IPC,against which a witness or any other person may file a complaint before the Magistrate u/s 195A CrPC.False charges against innocent accused involving offences u/s 195A IPC shall be cognizable and in such cases, except section 359 CrPC,accused shall be entitled for compensation under other sections of the CrPC i.e.sections 357 and 357A accordingly.
Like · Reply · December 7 at 9:36pm
Rahul Kumar


Rate this Article:

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

0 प्रतिक्रिया

  • SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Post a Comment



नवीनतम प्रतिक्रियाएंLatest Comments

topic of the week

latest from jagran