Justice as relief

Context: In a landmark verdict in Karan v. State National Capital territory (N.C.T.) of Delhi, the Delhi High Court has secured the right to restitution for victims of crime.

Right to restitution and issues therein: under Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) 

• Legal provisions: Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) empowered courts to order the accused to pay “compensation” to the victim; however, this was rarely followed.
• Practical constraints:
  • Courts were limited by the language of Section 357, which allowed them to issue orders for only such compensation as may otherwise be recoverable in a civil court.
    • E.g. It does not differentiate between restitution (includes reparation made by the offender) and compensation (paid by the state).
  • The courts were restricted by the absence of a uniform head under which compensation could be granted.
  • Risk of arbitrariness in the decision: Due to the absence of a uniform mechanism to calculate the paying capacity of the accused and ascertaining the impact of the crime on the victim.
  • The absence of sentencing guidelines impeded the application of the section.
• Judicial verdicts on Section 357 of CrPC
  • Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. the State of Maharashtra (2013):  Supreme Court (S.C.) mandates lower courts to apply judicial mind and record reasons for passing or not passing an order.
  • Delhi High Court verdict on Karan v. State N.C.T. of Delhi (2020): has secured the right to restitution for victims of crime.

Significance of the Karan v. State National Capital territory (N.C.T.) of Delhi verdict

• Helps in determine the quantum of compensation: By using the Victim Impact Report (V.I.R.) submitted by Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DLSA).
  • The quantum of compensation determined by V.I.R. will be in conjunction with the paying capacity of the accused.
  • I.R. will ascertain the impact of the crime upon the victim.
• Concerns that still remains
  • No differentiation between restitution and compensation:
  • Sentencing process is still ineffective: At present, V.I.R. is limited to calculating restitution.

Conclusion:  The need of the hour is that the courts come forward to adopt V.I.R. as one of the best practices in the interest of justice to victims of crime.