IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.904 of 2008 Gayatri Devi w/o Birendra Kumar, resident of Mohalla Garhpar, P.S.- Bihar, District- Nalanda. … Informant-petitioner. Versus 1. Sujit Kumar son of Ramanand Prasad 2. Ramanand Prasad son of Jagdish Prasad 3. Manju Kumar w/o Ramanand Prasad All residents of Mohalla- Garhpar, P.S.- Bihar, District- Nalanda. ..Accused-Opposite Party 1st Set. 4. The State of Bihar. … Opposite Party 2nd Set. ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pramod Kumar,Adv. : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Adv. For O.P. No.1 to 3 : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Suraj Prasad, APP. -------- 8. 05.09.2011 The victim- informant- petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 28.7.2008 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Cr. Appeal No. 9 of 2005 by which the appeal has been dismissed confirming the judgment and order dated 2.3.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in G. R. No. 1758 of 1997 arising out of Bihar P. S. Case No. 376 of 1997 by which the accused opposite party nos. 1 to 3 have been found guilty under sections 323 and 448 I.P.C and they have been released on probation bond of Rs.2000/- with one surety on the condition that they will keep peace and be of good behaviour for one year, 2 failing which they will surrender in the Court for receiving sentence. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.9.1997 at about 12 O’clock the informant was sitting in her house. In the meantime, accused opposite parties entered into her house forcibly. The accused Ramanand (Opposite party no. 2) told her that she did not contribute herself and misguided others (Mohalla people) not to contribute; therefore, she should be assaulted. Thereafter, the accused Sujit Kumar, opposite party no. 1 assaulted with Danda on her head causing injury and opposite party no. 3 Manju Kumari caught hold of her hair locks and assaulted her with slaps. On her raising alarm, her son Jitendra Kumar (P.W. 2), Munna Kumar @ Abhay Kumar (P.W.3) and her husband, Birendra Kumar (P.W. 1) came and rescued her. They were also assaulted by the accused opposite parties. On the basis of written report of the petitioner, Bihar P. S. Case No. 376 of 1997 was registered. After investigation charge- sheet was submitted against the accused opposite party nos. 1 to 3 under Sections 448, 323/34 I.P.C. Cognizance was taken. After trial 3 the accused were held guilty and were released on probation bond as aforesaid. The accused- opposite party nos. 1 to 3 preferred Cr. Appeal No. 9 of 2005 against the judgment and order of the learned trial court. The appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court has been upheld. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate Court has not considered that the victim should be given compensation for the injury and humiliation caused to her by the opposite party nos. 1 to 3. He has further submitted that the petitioner filed petition dated 3.8.2005 before the learned Appellate Court for awarding adequate compensation to the victim lady who is the petitioner in this case, but no order has been passed regarding the compensation to the petitioner and the petition filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Court has remained untouched. He has further contended that under Section 357(4) Cr.P.C. an order can be passed by this Court to pay compensation to the victim. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme 4 Court in the case of Hari Kishan and State of Haryana vs. Sukhbir Singh & Ors, reported in 1989 Cr. Law Journal 116= AIR 1988 S.C. 2127. In that case the accused were convicted and sentenced under Section 307/149 I.P.C. by the learned trial Court. In the appeal the High Court set aside the conviction under Section 307/34 I.P.C. but their conviction and sentence were maintained under Sections 325/149, 323/149 and 148 I.P.C. They were released on probation of good conduct. Each one of them was ordered to pay compensation of Rs.2500/- to the victim who was seriously injured in the incident. In default to pay the compensation they were directed to serve their sentence. The matter of compensation was further considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and amount of compensation was estimated at Rs.50,000/- to be given to the victim Yoginder to meet the ends of justice. Learned counsel for opposite party nos. 1 to 3 has submitted that the petition was filed by the petitioner in the Appellate Court which was also not filed in proper forum. No order has been passed on that petition, as such the matter of compensation may be remanded 5 before the Appellate Court. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of materials on record it appears that learned trial Court has held that the prosecution has been able to prove guilt of accused opposite party nos. 1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubts and they have been held guilty under Sections 448, 323 I.P.C. At the time of hearing, on the question of sentence it was submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the accused have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 448 and 323 IPC and some deterrent punishment should be awarded to them, as it was the first offence of the convicts they were released on probation bond. The learned Appellate Court has also found injury on the person of the informant Gayatri Devi and has also found lacerated wound on scalp caused by hard and blunt object. Learned appellate Court has also held as follows:- “5. ….. Thus, from the perusal of the totality of the evidence, it transpires that the prosecution has reasonably proved the case. The learned counsel for the appellants could not be able to shake the credibility of the witnesses. 6. In view of the 6 facts and circumstances discussed above, it transpires that the trial court had drawn the correct conclusion and the approach of the trial court in awarding the sentence appears to be reasonable. As such I do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the trial Court. Moreover, the period of Probation Bond has also expired.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also considered Section 357 Cr.P.C. in the aforesaid decision reported in 1989 CRl. Law Journal 116 that Section 357(2) is an important provision but the Courts have seldom invoked it. Perhaps due to ignorance of the object of it. It empowers the Court to award compensation to victims while passing judgment of conviction. In addition to conviction, the Court may order the accused to pay some amount by way of compensation to victim who has suffered by the action of the accused. It may be noted that this power of Courts to award compensation is not ancillary to other sentences but it is in addition thereto. This power was intended to do something to re-assure the victim that he or she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system. It is a measure of responding appropriately to crime as well as reconciling 7 the victim with the offender. It is, to some extent, a constructive approach to crimes. It is indeed a step forward in our criminal justice system. The Supreme Court recommended to all Courts to exercise this power liberally so as to meet the ends of justice in a better way. The payment by way of compensation must, however, be reasonable. What is reasonable may depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The quantum of compensation may be determined by taking into account the nature of crime, the justness of claim by the victim and the ability of accused to pay. If there are more than one accused they may be asked to pay in equal terms unless their capacity to pay varies considerably. The payment may also vary depending upon the acts of each accused. Reasonable period for payment of compensation, if necessary, by instalments, may also be given. The Court may enforce the order by imposing sentence in default. In this case, the occurrence has taken place on 16.9.1997 and the petitioner has been suffering humiliation and she has also suffered injury and pain. It is a fit case in which the victim-petitioner should be 8 compensated by the convict- opposite party nos. 1 to 3. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and also in view of the provisions contained in Section 357(4) Cr.P.C., an order to pay compensation may be passed by this Court instead of sending the matter to the appellate Court. With due regard to all the facts and circumstances, I consider that Rs.6000/- compensation to the petitioner would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, I direct the convict opposite party nos. 1 to 3 to pay the said amount within two months in equal proportion, failing which the learned trial Court will issue warrant of arrest to convict opposite party nos. 1 to 3 to receive the sentence of imprisonment. In the result, this revision application is allowed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)