MAHABIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted the revisionist under Section 325, I. P. C. He awarded two years' rigorous impri sonment and also imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000 or in default six month's rigorous imprisonment to the accused. THE revisionist went up in appeal and the first appellate court reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment to one year and fine to Rs. 500. Of course, in default of payment of fine a further imprisonment for six months was ordered. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed.

(2.) FROM seeing the record, it appears that on account of some dispute regarding property revisionist and some others dragged away. Smt. Ram Dulari when she was going to Kanpur. Her mother, the first informant, tried to intervene. Then she was also beaten. The medical report is to the eifect that there was facture of the fore -arm, there was huge swelling on the right hand and there was contusion on the right thigh. In this case the witnesses turned hostile except the complainant, Smt. Kaushalya, but her statement gets support from the injury report. She could not have manu facture on her body. Blood was recovered from the spot and the appellate court has found that the F. I. R. was not delayed. Taking all these circumstances in view, it appears that the revisionist committed an offence under Section 325, I. P. C. is correct. This is a finding of fact which does not call for interference.

(3.) THE complainant is a woman. She is going; to gain nothing by awarding sentence to the revisionist. Of course, she has seriously suffered on account of the injuries including fracture and she also suffered incon venience of prosecuting the case. THEre is power to award compensation under Section 357, Cr. P. C. and Probation of First Offenders Act. If instead of sentencing the accused, who is not a previous offender, he is released on executing a personal bond of good conduct. It is very likely that he would improve himself and there would be some sort of binding on him not to repeat such offence against the complainant. THE power to award compensa tion was intended to do something to reassure the victim that she is not forgotten under the criminal justice system. It is a measure of responding properly to the crime as well as reconciling the victim with the offender. It is, to some extent, a constructive approach to crimes -a step forward in our criminal, judicial system. THE Supreme Court has also recommended exercise of this power liberally so as to meet the ends of justice in a better way. ,, Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh and others, (1988) 4 SCC 551. Any such measure which would give the victim succour is far better than a sentence by deterrence. In the above case the Supreme Court took the view that the payment, by way of compensation, must be reasonable and not merely an eye -wash. What is reasonable may depend upon the facts and circumsances of each case. THE quantum of compensation may be determined by taking into account the nature of the crime, the justness of claim by the victim and the ability of accused to pay. THE payment may also vary depending upon the facts of the case and circumstances of the accused. Reasonable period for payment of compensation may also be given. THE Supreme Court proceeded to say that the Court may enforce the order for payment of compensation by imposing sentence in default. THErefore, now the position is not that the victim would be left at the mercy of the accused for getting compensation or accused would be able to delay the matter.