1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 129 of 2012 State Of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.) ... Applicant/Appellant versus 1 - Kanhaiyya Lal, S/o Hari Nandan Lal Sahu, aged about 30 years, R/o Village Chhinddand, P.S. Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea (C.G.) 2 – Smt. Preeti Sahu, W/o Shri Krishna Sahu, aged about 30 years, R/o Chhinddad Main Road, P.S. Baikunthpur, District – Korea (C.G.) ... Respondents/Non-applicants For Applicant/State : Shri Ratan Nidhi Pusty, Government Advocate. For Respondent 1 : None though served. For Respondent 2 : Shri Punit Ruparel, Advocate. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 17/03/2025 Heard. 1. This revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 14.02.2011 passed in Criminal Case No. 117/2009 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baikunthpur, Dist. Korea (C.G.) whereby the learned Court of J.M.F.C. ordered the State Government to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for rehabilitation of respondent No.2 – Smt. Preeti Sahu, in accordance with Section 357A(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.) 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 02.04.2009 at 8.00 pm, the respondent No.1 abused respondent No.2 filthily at village Chhinddad, upon which, husband of respondent No.2 and some villagers were Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR ALLENA Date: 2025.03.19 14:51:59 +0530 2 trying to pacify the dispute, but accused/respondent No.1 assaulted her while threatening her to life, which was reported to the Police Station Baikunthpur and based on report, offence under Sections 294, 323 and 506-B of IPC and Sections 4 & 5 of Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2005) has been registered against respondent No.2 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baikunthpur. The applicant abjured the charge and pleaded non-guilty. 4. During trial, respondent No.2/victim had filed two applications on 14.02.2011, one is under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. and another, under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. wherein it was stated by the victim/respondent No.2 that she and the accused/respondent No.2 are members of the same family, they are brother-in-law and sister-in-law (Devar & Bhabhi) in relation, a cordial relationship has been established between them, discharging familial duties as before and there exists no dispute between them, thus, both the parties have reached a mutual settlement and due to mutual compromise between them, the complainant is no longer interested in pursuing the case against the accused/respondent No.2, therefore, case against the respondent No.1 be closed. It is also stated by her that without any fear and pressure, she voluntarily compromised the matter. 5. The learned Court of JMFC, on such applications and after considering every aspect of the matter, acquitted the respondent No.1 of the charges under Sections 294, 323 and 506-B of IPC while convicting him under Sections 4 & 5 of the Act, 2005 on the ground that the offence under Sections 4 & 5 of the Act, 2005 are non-compoundable 3 and while giving such finding, the trial Court directed the State Government to pay Rs.50,000/- to respondent No.2/victim as compensation for her rehabilitation as per Section 357A(3) of the Cr.P.C. Hence, this revision by the State Government against the award of compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant/State submits that although there existed mutual compromise between the respondents which resulted in acquittal of the respondent No.1 of the charges under Sections 294, 323 and 506-B of IPC and his conviction under Sections 4 & 5 of the Act, 2005 by the trial Court, but there was no order under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. against the accused/respondent No.1 for compensation payable to the victim (respondent No.2), therefore, Section 357A(3) is not applicable. In support, he placed his reliance upon the judgment rendered in the matter of Sumit Kumar Shah and ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand and ors. Reported in 2021 0 Supreme (Jhk) 94 : 2021 1 JLJR 666. 7. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent No.2/victim supports the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 9. Record shows that indisputably, the respondent No.1/accused was charged under Sections 294, 323 and 506-B of IPC and Sections 4 & 5 of the Act, 2005. However, during trial, the respondent No.2/victim had filed two applications on 14.02.2011, one is under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. and another, under Section 320(8)of Cr.P.C. stating therein that she and the accused/respondent No.2 are members of the same family, they are brother-in-law and sister-in-law (Devar & Bhabhi) in 4 relation, there exists cordial relationship between them, discharging familial duties as before and also there was no dispute between them, thus, both the parties have reached a mutual settlement and due to mutual compromise between them, she does not want to pursue the case against the accused/respondent No.1, therefore, case against the respondent No.1 be closed. However, the trial Court vide its judgment dated 14.02.2011, considering every aspect of the matter and also considering the applications filed by the victim, acquitted the respondent No.1 of the charges under Sections 294, 323 and 506-B of IPC while convicting him under Sections 4 & 5 of the Act, 2005. Although the trial Court convicted the accused/respondent No.1 as such, but no order as to compensation payable to the victim under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. was passed against him and in turn, the trial Court, in the interest of justice to provide compensation to the victim and also considering the provisions under Section 357A(3) of Cr.P.C., was of the opinion that the victim party cannot be deprived of the benefit of this humanitarian provision and accordingly, under the provision of Section 357A(3) of Cr.P.C., directed the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the victim/respondent No.2 as compensation for her rehabilitation. Such finding recorded by the trial Court, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not sustainable. 10. Turning to the merits of the matter, it would be appropriate to notice the law relating to compensation to victim in this behalf. Section 357A was inserted in the Code by the Law Commission of India in its 154th Law Commission Report, which reads as follows:- “357A. Victim compensation scheme.--- (1) Every State Government in co-ordination with the Central Government shall prepare a scheme for providing funds for the purpose of 5 compensation to the victim or his dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation. (2) Whenever a recommendation is made by the Court for compensation, the District Legal Service Authority or the State Legal Service Authority, as the case may be, shall decide the quantum of compensation to be awarded under the scheme referred to in sub-section (1) (3) If the trial Court, at the conclusion of the trial, is satisfied, that the compensation awarded under section 357 is not adequate for such rehabilitation, or where the cases end in acquittal or discharge and the victim has to be rehabilitated, it may make recommendation for compensation. (4) to (6) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 11. The object and purpose of the above provision is to enable the Court to direct the State to pay compensation to the victim in case the compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. is not adequate, thereby meaning that if the compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. is not adequate, then the trial Court may make a recommendation to the State Government. However, a bare perusal of impugned judgment would reveal that the trial Court did not pass any order of compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. and straightaway passed the order or compensation under Section 357A(3) Cr.P.C. Provisions contained in Section 357 Cr.P.C. are clear for granting compensation to the victim at the time of conclusion of trial. 12. In the matter of Sumit Kumar Shaw (supra), the High Court of Jharkhand has held in para 44 as under: “44. A conjoint reading of Section 357 and 357A(3), would clarify that if the convict is not in a position to compensate the victim adequately and the Court feels so, may recommend payment of further compensation, by invoking Section 357A(3) of the Code. The “Inadequate Compensation”, which the convict pays in terms of Section 357 of the Code is made “adequate” by payment of additional compensation, which has to be paid by the State in terms of Section 357A(3) of the Code. Thus, the intent of the legislature is quite clear that the victim compensation, which has to be paid in terms of Section 357A of the Code has to be paid by the State from the fund, so created, and not by the accused. It is only by invoking Section 6 357 of the Code, after conclusion of trial, holding the guilt of the accused, the convict should be directed to pay compensation.” 13. When the present matter is examined in the light of provision and aforesaid decision, it is quite vivid that although the trial Court convicted the respondent No.1/accused under Sections 4 & 5 of the Act, 2005 while acquitting him of the charges under Sections 294, 323 and 506-B of IPC, but at the same time, it ignored to invoke Section 357 Cr.P.C. despite it being a clear provision of grant of compensation to the victims. Besides, although the respondent No.1 was convicted as such, but has not been imposed any fine amount and, furthermore the dispute has already been settled by the complainant/victim with the respondent No.1 as they are relatives with each other and have established cordial relation. Therefore, the impugned judgment that the State Government shall pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the victim in accordance with Section 357A(3) is liable to be set aside. 14. As a result of what has been stated above, the revision stands allowed and the impugned judgment is hereby set aside. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani