This article has been written by Priyanshi Sarin.
Judgement is the final decision of the Judge or Magistrate arrived after due appraisal of the evidence, it includes a judgement of conviction or acquittal but not an order of discharge. In every criminal trial, court exercising original jurisdiction pronounces the judgement once the trial is completed, pronouncement may be immediate or after some lapse of time. The presiding officer can reproduce the judgement verbatim or just the operative part while explaining the essence of the entire judgement. The language of the judgement is one which is understood by he accused or his pleader, this condition is essential in accordance with the universally applicable principles of fair trial.
India conforms to the norm of public hearing, public scrutiny protects against arbitrary decision which is why it is mandated by the code. Thereby it is upheld by way of precedents that no expression of opinion by a judge is to be deemed as a judgement unless it is pronounced in open court. Even if the accused is in the custody he shall be brought up to hear the judgment pronounced.
Further it is also held that personal appearance of the accused shall be directed specifically when the sentence involves heavy punishment in the form of imprisonment. However, in case there are more accused than one and one or more of them do not attend the court on date on which the judgement is pronounced the Presiding officer to avoid delay of the case can pronounce the judgement even their absence. As soon as the judgment is pronounced a copy of the same immediately be made available for the perusal of the parties free of cost.
After establishing the concept and basic rules of pronouncing judgement, the essentials of the judgement are to be studied which basically includes the issues(points for determination), ratio decidendi(decision and the reason), the particular offence along with the parallel section of any statute under which it is codified as an offence and the quantum of the punishment. It is written in the language of the court or if not written translated in courts language.
The heart and soul of the judgement is the reasoning it is based upon, in the absence of justification of opinion there is an adverse presumption made that the judgement is arbitrary. This does not imply that the judgement has to include each and every evidence or every dialogue spoken by anyone in the entire various stages of the trial, Court is entitled to differentiate relevant and unnecessary facts and evidences. Court can under no circumstances evade the necessary step of not providing the statement of points for determination and the reasons for the decision, an incomplete judgement can vitiate the conviction which amounts to failure of justice.
EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES: EFFECT ON JUDGEMENT
- The constitution of India guarantees protection of life and liberty, curbing it being an exception and is resorted to only in exceptional cases and thereby to exercise control over it Cr. P.C mandates giving special reasons in case of granting capital punishment.
- Death penalty does not violate Article 21 as long as it is given in the rarest of rare case.Rarest of rare is a doctrine which usually depends upon the motive and conduct by the accused, in such case the court shall record such reasons which reasonably conclude that there were absolutely no mitigating circumstances for awarding a sentence lesser than death. The Apex Court has suggested the tests to determine the category of “rarest of rare” category, the special reasons in the judgement can include that the parameters of granting death penalty were fulfilled. Further, all capital sentences passed by the Sessions judges are subject to confirmation by the High Court.
- Training or rehabilitation of young offenders being a part of restorative justice is mandatory, not doing so would require the adjudicating authority to record special reasons.
- Imposition of extremely short and inadequate sentences is also not advisable, and requires the court to give adequate reasons. Punishment should match the gravity of the offence, undue leniency does even more harm to justice system. A judgment declares the existence of the right, recognises the commission of the injury or negatives the allegations of one or the others.
ANALYSIS AND SUGGESTIONS
- Upper time limit for disposing a case shall be fixed and strict action to be taken when undue delay is being caused in pronouncing judgements since in India there is no specific period of pronouncement of judgement, section 353 only states that judgement shall be delivered immediately or “at some subsequent time”. Speedy justice is imperative and the judge, has absolute control of his Court, wherein he ought to ensure that the process inspires confidence, ensures impartial treatment and is seen as transparently fair by all who approach it. At times owing to pressurized environment or due to influence and vested interest, judgments are delayed deliberately, this makes holding judges accountable an integral part of our criminal justice system.
- The sanctity associated with the judicial wing puts the expectancy of justice on a very high threshold. Vigilance and strict scrutiny by the judge must be exercised while writing the judgement, negligence in terms of appreciating the facts and evidence could lead to miscarriage of justice. For instance, a judgement is not good in law if it is partially based on prosecution version and partially on the defence version or where the doctrine of proportionality is not been adhered with while formulating the sentence.
- Lastly, many a times judgement is bound to takes a stance different from what is purported in the Statute for the simple reason that as the society progresses, complex issues and diverse problems crop up and the law must adapt to the same. Thereby, in certain cases, even though the judiciary is not supposed to legislate, it shall lay down directions of that naturethis would help the public gain confidence that even though the legislature has left a grey area, they can always knock the doors of judiciary.
Justice must be reformative for the accused and rehabilitative for the victim, it is therefore, a legitimate expectation that the victim must be given rehabilitative support in form of monetary compensation for the loss or injury suffered. Hence, there was need to introduce a provision for compensation to the victim irrespective of criminal prosecution, accordingly, S. 357 and subsequently S. 357A were inserted in the code of criminal Procedure. Previously, provision u/s. 545 provided for compensation to the victims, however based on the Law Commission Report, it was stated that our courts were not exercising statutory powers in awarding compensation and thus, old provision u/s. 545 was replaced with s. 357. Further, Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, Motor Vehicles, 1988 Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 are other statues which contain provisions for compensation.
- 357 states that compensation is payable for any loss or injury whether physical or pecuniary and is payable only when the accused is punished with a sentence of fine or some other sentences of which fine is a part of. The compensation is paid out of the fine which is recovered. The amount of fine depends upon the limit imposed on a particular offences and extent of the courts power. Further, under Sec 357 (3) the power of magistrate to award compensation is unlimited. The compensation is paid out of the fine which is recovered.
- The process, as envisaged in section 357 can be initiated by the court or victim. The court may recommend compensation by the District or State Legal Services Authority. Criticism of S. 357
- This section can be invoked only in cases of conviction. It functions on the assumption that the accused is identified, prosecuted and convicted. In case of the contrary, the court cannot rely on S. 357 for providing compensation.
- Further the provision puts the burden on the accused to pay the quantum of compensation without giving due regard to his financial position. The provision does not provide for appropriation of the liability between the State and the accused.
- 357Awas incorporated after the recommendation of the Malimath Committee Report in order to recognize compensation as one of the methods to protect the interest of the victims. The provision focuses on the rehabilitation of the victim even if the accused is not tried.
- The provision ensures that the state government in consultation with the central government prepares a scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensating the victim of crime who have suffered loss or injury due to the crime. At the end of the trial, the trial court may recommend for compensation in two situations.
- Firstly, if it is satisfied that the compensation awarded under section 357 is inadequate, for rehabilitation.
- Secondly, if the case ends in acquittal or discharge of the accused and that the victim has to be rehabilitated.
Thus, in my opinion this provision is really in tune with providing with rehabilitative rights to the victim in accordance with the international human rights instruments.
The Supreme Court in various cases has awarded compensation to the victim while convicting the accused. The trend followed by the SC in its precedents depicts that it was not very optimistic of S. 357. However he Supreme Court in the case of Hari Singh, has accepted a different trend wherein it was held that the power of the court u/s. 357 to award compensation was not ancillary but in addition to other sentences. Further in this case, the court by expanding the scope has interpreted the section to mean that the compensation should be reasonable and must be awarded after taking into consideration not only the gravity or misconduct of the accused but also the capacity of the accused to pay.
The progressive judgment of the Court in the above case was not allowed by the court in its later judgment in Brij Lal v. Prem Chand, State of U.P. v. Jodha Singh, State of Mysore v. Tyhappa, Nand Ballabh ant v. UT of Delhi and Gur Swami v. State, wherein the Court awarded compensation out of the fine amount and was more sympathetic towards the accused than the victim.
Additionally, Supreme Court emphasized the setting up of a Compensation Board (exclusively for rape victims) in Delhi Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India. It ordered the National Commission for Women to evolve a scheme “so as to wipe out the tears from the eyes of unfortunate victims of rape.” NCW had sent a draft to the Central Government in 1995. The scheme is called “Scheme for Relief and Rehabilitation of Victims of Rape, some salient features of the scheme include allocating funds to Ministry of Women and Child Development by the Central government, establishing a Criminal Injuries Relief and Rehabilitation Board in every district, determination of relief on the basis of certain parameters such as severity of bodily injury, loss of earning, psychological trauma caused, providing enhanced relief in grievous offences etc.
The paradigm shift towards enhancing the compensation was adopted by the court to provide solace to the victim and to service social justice in the society. Thus, in Ankush Shiwaji Gaikwad v. The State of Maharashtra, it was held that, the legislative intent of the provisions relating to victim compensation was to reassure the victim that he is not a forgotten party in the criminal justice system. Further, a landmark decision of the Court in the case of Suresh v. State of Haryana awarded the victim with an interim compensation and the State was directed pay an amount of Rs 10 lakhs to the family of the victims who had been abducted and murdered.
The UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power provides that, when compensation is not fully available from offender or other sources, the State should endeavour to provide financial compensation. The Declaration further states that the expansion of national funds for compensation should be encouraged. Victims should receive the necessary material, medical, psychological and social assistance through governmental, voluntary, community based and indigenous means.The remedy of compensation was a creation of the former Permanent Court of International Justice in the case of Chorzow Factory wherein restitution in integrum was made as a remedy to damage and injury.
The Principles of Victimology has its foundations in the Indian Constitution particularly in the fundamental rights and DPSPs. A new initiative was taken by the judiciary in evolving compensatory remedy through Art. 32 or 226/227. The court in Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar awarded compensation u/a. 32 for the deprivation of fundamental rights. Further the Court in State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh granted a compensation of 5 lakhs even after acquitting the accused thereby setting a tone for providing compensation to the victims.
- The remedies currently available under the law are limited, fragmented, uncoordinated and reactive. Compensation as criminal law remedy is a token relief rather than a substantive remedy. The power is discretionary, they neither impose a legal compulsion to order compensation nor do they require speaking orders and the court can limit the amount as well. Also, if the case is subject to appeal, payment can be made only after the time for making the appeal has elapsed or after the decision of the appeal.
- There is no consensus in India regarding the question of the agency that has to be entrusted with the work of compensation. Judicial approaches favour an independent body, Law Commission is confused and at least one state thinks police station is the best place to carry out the scheme.
Compensation is not only required but is in fact a very important aspect of even criminal law and the courts should not use this sparingly but a little liberally. Provided below are few recommendation to strengthen the structure of criminal justice.
- The prevalent laws must be reformed and redesigned to be in consonance with international standards. For eg protection is given for crime committed outside a country in developed countries (like the U.S). It is desirable to have such a provision in India.
- Further for the success of the scheme, all state must enforce an uniform scheme for deciding the grounds and quantum of compensation.
- Ideally, the primary authority for disbursal of fund should be multi-sectoral body (which has police official, health official, and an expert in victimology).The Legal Services Authority could be an appellate body. By doing so, the benefits of institutionalised payment can be reaped.
- In-built periodic audits as a check wherein an accounting officer is required to submit annual financial reports to the Secretary of State so as to check whether the disbursing function is being performed honestly.
An appeal is a complaint to a superior court of an injustice done or error committed by an inferior one whose judgment or decision, the court above is called upon to correct or reverse. It is the right to seek assistance of the superior court in order to ascertain whether the judgment passed by the inferior court is sustainable. It is a statutory right and thereby exists only when expressly given. Thus, there is no vested right to appeal as such as even the first appeal will be subjected to statutory limitations, these obstacles are imperative for reducing the burden on judiciary.
There are definite provisions disallowing appeal, thereby there is no appeal in petty cases in which the maximum punishment granted is imprisonment for six months or a maximum fine of 1,000rs. Additionally, when a person confesses his guilt without any coercion and is convicted, he cannot challenge the order by way of an appeal. He can challenge the veracity of sentence passed but even this right would be curbed when the punishment is awarded by the High Court.
In lieu of the 154th law commission report, Section 372 of Cr.P.C was amended in a way which grants the victim a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting him for a lesser offence or against the order imposing inadequate compensation. This right is extended to the relatives and legal heirs of the victim. An appeal from an order of acquittal must be filed within the period of limitation prescribed by Article 114 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963.
APPEAL IN CASES OF ACQUITTAL
The legislative intent to reduce hasty acquittals has been manifested in the amended section 378 of the Code.The section permits the victim or complainant to file an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable offence. In a recent case Murlidhar v. State of Karnataka the Apex court elaborated upon how appeals are to be dealt by the Appellate Court, in a nutshell it emphasized that generally interference in the decision of trial court should be refrained from and that merely because the appellate court on re-appreciating and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined towards a different view, there should not be reversal or modification. Only once the appellate court after giving due weightage to points such as presumption of innocence, benefit of doubt, credibility of witness concludes that the view taken by the trial court is erroneous and unreasonable it shall interfere.
In the case of an acquittal, there is a double presumption in favor of the accused, one pertaining to presumption of innocence and the other which is created by acquittal. The Apex Court has also stated that interference in an appeal against acquittal should be rare, it is limited to those cases where the judgment of Trial Court was perverse and the word “perverse” has been understood to mean, “against the weight of evidence”.
CASES PERMITTING APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL
- The finding is vitiated by some glaring infirmity in the appraisal of evidence.
- The order suffers from substantial errors of law and fact.
- In a case where two dying declarations were made by the deceased, further there was corroboration of facts by six eye-witnesses, Supreme Court held that the High Court had judiciously exercised its power in reappraisal of evidence and conviction of the accused.
- Omission to consider material facts, leading to acquittal.
- Erroneous view by High Court, discarding cogent and credible eye-witness for trivial irregularities.
- Acquittal on grounds of absence of any third-party witness, when the victim (sole eye-witness) is present.
- The judgment is tainted with serious legal infirmities.
Thereby time and again it is being reiterated by the apex court that intrusion in an order of acquittal shall be permitted only when the circumstances are compelling
- The principle established by the Apex Court states: where two views are possible, one in favor of the accused is to be preferred.In the authors view, it is submitted that the view which seems more probable and is accompanied by evidence should prevail, courts should see the in whose favor “balance of convenience” lies and not blindly favor the order of acquittal. Miscarriage of justice, arising from acquittal of guilty is no less than conviction of innocent.
- There is too much shift towards protecting the rights of the accused, to the extent that in a situation where the respondent is absconding, an appeal against acquittal cannot be heard. The very fact of running and fleeting away from justice to some extent denotes “guilt” and thereby once notice has been served as per section 385 of the Code, the case should be tried ex-parte. Pendency of an appeal shall not grant the luxury of confirming the order of acquittal.
- The need of this provision stems from the doctrine of human fallibility, any and every judge irrespective of his knowledge and experience can pass an erroneous and perverse order of acquittal for the one against whom all allegations are presumed to be true. Dismissal of appeals against acquittal would put the society in danger again, “free roaming” of criminals is a threat to the existence of peace and harmony and thereby the strict approach of admitting appeals against acquittal needs to be toned down.
- In the authors view, it is imperative to deter those wrong-doers who try to slip from the hands of justice by tampering the witnesses, destroying the evidence and thereby making it extremely difficult for the prosecutor to fulfill the criteria of “proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt” ultimately which leads to dismissing an appeal against acquittal.
The Public Prosecutor/special public prosecutor only can file an appeal under the section, Legal Remembrancer is not a Public Prosecutor within the meaning of this section.
The commencement of appeal against an order of acquittal can be initiated by the state government when the order is passed by any court other than the High Court or by the Central Government when an offence has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment.
Even though, law and order falls within the state list, the apex court has affirmed that even the Central government can direct its Public Prosecutor to file appeal from order of acquittal. 
Even the complainant can proceed after obtaining a special leave from the High Court by presenting an application for the same within sixty days from the order of acquittal. The discretion should be exercised effectively by the High Court, it should not be a mechanical approach or a decision plagued with biasness and prejudice. The aim being protecting the interests of the accused person should be achieved, however not at the cost of injustice and infringement of rights of the victim. For instance, not granting leave when the accused is a prominent figure or influential person and the judge for his personal interest wants to keep him in his good books.
The appeal shall be made in the form of a petition by the appellant or his pleader or by the officer in charge of jail in case the appellant is in jail along with the copy of the judgment/order appealed against. The memorandum of appeal should contain grounds of the appeal. Thereafter, if the appeal is admitted the parties are informed about the time and place of its hearing which shall be adhered to. The appellate court shall furnish the complainant, officer appointed by the State Government an accused with a copy of the grounds of appeal. Then the appellate court will adjudicate upon the case as per its merits unless the appeal is only with regards to severity of the sentence. 
In an appeal from an order of acquittal, the appellate court may reverse the order and direct further enquiry or find him guilty and pass an appropriate sentence. The predominant principles in exercising powers has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan.
Firstly, the appellate court has full powers to review the evidence upon which order of acquittal is founded.
Secondly, the appellate court shall give due consideration to the view taken by the trial judge, the presumption of innocence and follow the basic rules in administration of justice,
Thirdly, the appellate court must record reasons to hold that the acquittal was not justified.
The major difference in an appeal against conviction and an appeal against acquittal is the “benefit of doubt” which is given to the accused.
Under Articles 132, 134 and 136 of the Constitution of India, it may be possible to present an appeal to the Supreme Court against the order of acquittal passed by the High Court.
- An appeal lies to the SC when HC certifies that the matter involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. It also lies when the HC upon an appeal has reversed an order of acquittal of and given death sentence.Finally, special leave petitions being the “last resort” for any matter can be sought as a remedy if all other alternatives fail.
- Further, by way of articles 132,134 and 136 it is possible to present an appeal to the Supreme Court against the inadequacy of sentence passed by the High Court. Hence, the Constitution expands the right to appeal to move beyond the provisions of our Criminal Code. Even the High Court can give an erroneous judgment for which these articles provide a room of rectification particularly article 136 which can be invoked even by private individuals to challenge the acquittal.
- However since appeal against an order of acquittal is an exceptional remedy, it would be allowed only in special circumstance. For instance, when the Supreme Court finds that the order passed by the High Court is misconceived and perverse, it can exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under At. 136.When the acquittal is not based on a reasonable view, then it may review the entire material and there will be no limitation on this Court’s jurisdiction Under Article 136 to come to a just decision quashing the acquittal.
POWERS OF APPELLATE COURT IN APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL
SECTION 386 of the Code specifies powers of the appellate court, it provides that after hearing the record and after hearing the parties, the court may dismiss the appeal, allow the appeal or pass any other order that may appear to it be just and proper. In case of acquittal, the court has power to reverse the order and to direct further inquiry or probably ask for a re-trial.
In Chandrappa & Others v. State of Karnataka Supreme Court held:
- An appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsiders the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
- The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on the exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
ANALYSIS AND SUGGESTION
- Basic guidelines differentiating what is “substantial question of law” and what is not would help reduce the ambiguity and provide the High Court clarity with regards to matters which shall be sent to the Supreme Court under 132(1).
- While scrutinising the circumstantial evidence, it is the duty of the Court to evaluate it to ensure the chain of events clearly established and completely to Rule out any reasonable likelihood of innocence of the Accused. This would depend on the facts of each case emanating from the evidence and there should not be a straitjacket formula which can be laid down for the purpose.
- It is always to be kept in mind that the circumstances adduced when considered collectively, must lead only to the conclusion that there cannot be a person other than the Accused who alone is the perpetrator of the crime alleged and the circumstances must establish the conclusive nature consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the Accused.
- The judge ought not to draw any inferences against the defendant from the fact that he has been charged with a crime, he must decide the case solely on the evidence presented during the trial.
- Lastly, all decisions should be based upon principles of natural justice, judges shall refrain strictly from adopting a mechanical approach whether it pertains to admission or dismissal of an appeal against acquittal, since ultimately the decision of the court impacts the life of both the accused and victim.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Dr KN Chandrasekharan pillai, R.V. Kelkers Criminal procedure,614, ( 5th ed, 2008, 2012 reprint)
Justice V.S. Malimath, Report of the Committee on Reforms of Criminal Jusyice System, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, (2003), https://mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/criminal_justice-systems2.pdf. [ hereinafter “ Malimath Committee Report”]
LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA, ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY FOURTH REPORT ON THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973(1996), at 57
M.S. Deshpande, Protection Of Human Rights By Invoking Compensatory Jurisdition By Courts, 2014 Cri. L.J.
Bluebook 20th ed. Sridip S. Nambiar, Some Insights on Formulation of a Victim Compensation Scheme in India, 5 NUALS L.J. 128, 146 (2011)
NDL India: Criminal Procedure Code. [online] Available at: http://ndl.iitkgp.ac.in/document/wJHfXHJS1fSgcbV3XkAL1r2HVW87UZQLXEzrcZlSG0UjT24YSBF3RSYoVBsdLHTplizI_Vakcn8ctz3Vn9BBQA [Accessed 4 Feb. 2019]
NDL India: Compensation to victims of crime and rehabilitation measures in India. [online] Available at: http://ndl.iitkgp.ac.in/document/MNW5MkCd5gIN5KChbDRNPywQXdfs79Nn1EAA-7nMUFEQRhHkhjWCWbqoOmrycnn4tmEMHlrIDOiTlPioXrQ [Accessed 4 Feb. 2019]
Ndl.iitkgp.ac.in. (2019). NDL India: Compensating Victims of Crime in India: An Appraisal. [online] Available at: http://ndl.iitkgp.ac.in/document/wJHfXHJS1fSgcbV3XkAL1qIFL9BYSW_uJr1xZI1gGgJ3Vu4B8ArajT00kQKQUXtHiFs-DSgWl2l1yj_Ln93tRg [Accessed 4 Feb. 2019]
NATIONAL DIGITAL LIBRARY OF INDIA
 Dwarka Nath v. Beni Madhab, (1901) 28 Cal 652
 Section 353(1) Code of Criminal Procedure (1973)
 Golder v The United Kingdom  ECHR 1.
 Section 327, Code of Criminal Procedure (1973)
 Nundeeput Mahta v. Alexander Shaw, (1870) 13 WR 209
 Jain Babu v. K.J. Joseph, AIR 2009 NOC 404 (Ker)
 Section 363 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, Ladli Prasad Zutshi v/s State of Allahbad (1931)
 Palekanda Karumbaiah v. State of Karnataka, 1989 CrLJ (NOC) 73 (Kant)
 Section 364 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
 Jhabwala v. Emperor, (1933) ILR 55 All 1040
 Jhari Lal v. Emperor, (1929) 8 Pat 904
 Section 263, 264 and 265 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
 Section 355 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
 Article 21, Constitution of India (1950)
 Section 354(3) Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
 Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898
 Mahendra Nath Das v. State of Assam, AIR 1999 SC 1926
 Sushil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2004 SC 394
 Section 361 Code of Criminal Procedure1973; State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Lat Singh And Ors. 1990 CriLJ 723
 Section 354(4) Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
 State of Karnataka v. Muralidhar, AIR 2009 SC 1621
 Gurdit Singh v. State of Punjab, (1974) 2 SCC 260.
 Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318
 Kulwant Singh v. Amarjit Singh, AIR 2000 SC 1212
 Pritam Chauhan v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi), AIR 2014 SC 2553
 Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited v. Securities and Exchange Board of India (2012) 10 SCC 603 para 52
 Sec 545 (1) (bb ) and 546 of CRPC 1898 which provided for compensation for victims of crime.
 LAW COMMISSION REPORT, THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCUDRE, 1969.
 NDL India: Criminal Procedure Code. [online] Available at: http://ndl.iitkgp.ac.in/document/wJHfXHJS1fSgcbV3XkAL1r2HVW87UZQLXEzrcZlSG0UjT24YSBF3RSYoVBsdLHTplizI_Vakcn8ctz3Vn9BBQA [Accessed 4 Feb. 2019
 For instance a second class judicial magistrate is empowered to impose fine only up to an amount not
exceeding one thousand rupees but if he awards compensation under Section 357(3) instead of fine, he can do so
without any apparent limit.
 NDL India: Criminal Procedure Code. [online] Available at: http://ndl.iitkgp.ac.in/document/wJHfXHJS1fSgcbV3XkAL1r2HVW87UZQLXEzrcZlSG0UjT24YSBF3RSYoVBsdLHTplizI_Vakcn8ctz3Vn9BBQA [Accessed 4 Feb. 2019
 This provision was inserted on the basis of 152nd and 156th report of the recommendations of Law commission
in 1994 and 1996 respectively.
 Justice V.S. Malimath, Report of the Committee on Reforms of Criminal Jusyice System, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, (2003), https://mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/criminal_justice-systems2.pdf. [ hereinafter “ Malimath Committee Report”].
 NDL India: Compensation to victims of crime and rehabilitation measures in India. [online] Available at: http://ndl.iitkgp.ac.in/document/MNW5MkCd5gIN5KChbDRNPywQXdfs79Nn1EAA-7nMUFEQRhHkhjWCWbqoOmrycnn4tmEMHlrIDOiTlPioXrQ [Accessed 4 Feb. 2019]
 S. 357 A (1).
 S. 357 A (3)
 Ndl.iitkgp.ac.in. (2019). NDL India: Compensating Victims of Crime in India : An Appraisal. [online] Available at: http://ndl.iitkgp.ac.in/document/wJHfXHJS1fSgcbV3XkAL1qIFL9BYSW_uJr1xZI1gGgJ3Vu4B8ArajT00kQKQUXtHiFs-DSgWl2l1yj_Ln93tRg [Accessed 4 Feb. 2019]_______________
 Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh,(1988) 4 SCC 551
 Brij Lal v. Prem Chand, (1989) Supp (2) SCC 680.
 State of UP v. Jodha Singh, (1989) 3 SCC 465.
 State of Mysore v. Tyhappa, AIR 1962 Mys. 51.
 Nand Babu Pant v. State (UT of Delhi), (1976) 4 SCC 512
 Gur Swami v. State, AIR 1979 SC 892.
 1995) 1 SCC 14
 The scheme was attached as an appendix to the 2005 annual report of NCW
 Ankush Shiwaji Gaikwad v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 2013 SC 2454.
 Suresh v. State of Haryana, 2015 Cri L J 661.
 Article 13.
 Article 14.
 Factory at Chorzow (Germany v. Poland) 1928 P.C.I.J (ser.A)No. 17 (Order of Sept 13).
 LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA, ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY FOURTH REPORT ON THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973(1996), at 57.
 Article 38 & 41 of the Constitution of India.
 Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar(1983)4 SCC 141.
 State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh, (1995) 2 SCC 486.
 Committee on the Reform of the Criminal Justice System (hereinafter Malimath Committee Report), para 6.8.1, p.80
 K. I. Vibhute, Compensating Victims of Crime in India – An Appraisal, JILl Vol. 32 (1990), p. 68
 Section 357 (2) Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
 Sridip S. Nambiar, Some Insights on Formulation of a Victim Compensation Scheme in India, 5 NUALS L.J. 128, 146 (2011).
 Black’s Law Dictionary
 Section 372 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
 Section 376 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
 Section 229 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
 Section 375 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
 Jafar M Talab, (1880) 5 Bom 85.
 Proviso inserted by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008, s.29
 Satya Pal Singh v. State of M.P(2015) 15 SCC 613
 Cr.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2005, s.32
 AIR 2014 SC 2200
 Harbans Singh v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 439
 State of Punjab v. Sukhchain Singh, AIR 2009 SC 1542
 Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh Through Secretary AIR 2010 SC 589
Girish Singh vs. The State of Uttarakhand (23.07.2019 – SC) : MANU/SC/0951/2019
 State of U.P. v. Sahai, MANU/SC/0258/1981 : (1982) 1 SCC 352 at SCC paras 20-22: AIR paras 19-21.
 Rajesh Kumar v. Dharamvir, MANU/SC/0935/1997 : (1997) 4 SCC 496 at SCC para 5.)
 Vinay Kumar v. State of M.P. AIR 1994 SC 830
 Animireddy Venkata Ramana v. PP, HC of A.P. AIR 2008 SC 1603
 State v. Rajendran, AIR 2009 SC 925
 State of Orissa v. Sukurn Gouda, AIR 2009 SC 1019
 State of Maharashtra v. Narsingrao Gangaram Pimple, MANU/SC/0158/1983 : (1984) 1 SCC 446 at SCC para 45: AIR para 45
 State of U.P. v. Gambhir Singh, AIR 2005 SC 2439
 The State v. Vishwanath, (1954) ILR Nag 159.
 State of Rajasthan v. Thakur Singh, (2014) 12 SCC 211
 Deputy Legal Remembrancer, Bengal v. Gaya Prasad, (1913) 41 Cal 425.
 Section 378(1) Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
 Section 378(2) Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
 Lalu Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar, AIR 2010 SC 1561
 Section 378(4) Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
 Suga Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 8 SCC 641
 Section 383 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
 Section 382 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
 Kapil Deo Shukla v. State of U.P. AIR 1958 SC 121
 Kapil Deo Shukla v. State of U.P. AIR 1958 SC 121
 Section 386 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
 AIR 1961 SC 715
 Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415
 State( Delhi Admn.) v. Laxman Kumar (1985) 4 SCC 476
 Article 132(1) Constitution of India 1950
 Article 134(1) Constitution of India 1950
 Article 136 Constitution of India 1950
 Deepak Rai v. State of Bihar, (2013) 10 SCC 421
 Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai (2003) 12 SCC 395
 Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2010 6 SCC I
 State of Rajasthan v. Islam, AIR 2011 SC 2317
 State (Delhi Admn.) v. Laxman Kumar, MANU/SC/0109/1985 : (1985) 4 SCC 476 at SCC para 45
 (2007) 4 SCC 415
 State of Rajasthan vs. Mahesh Kumar and Ors. (16.07.2019 – SC) : MANU/SC/0915/2019
Click Here if you want to read more
Click Here if you want to read more