Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Karnataka High Court issued new victim compensation guidelines disposing a murder case whose trial started almost 20 years ago. The role of Courts in evolving laws wherein which there is currently no legislative mandate is not new. In the landmark case of Vishaka v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court empowered under Article 141 of the Constitution issues the Vishaka Guidelines for the protection of women from sexual harassment at workplaces.
The brief facts of the present case is concerning the dispute of a family property between Yashonanda and his brother Vishwanatha which resulted in Vishwanatha assaulting his brother with a sickle and causing grievous hurt. The Trial Court convicted the accused for offences under Section 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. The accused were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of two years and ordered to pay a fine of Rs 1000. The accused upon appeal to the Appellate Court got acquitted. The State had filed the present appeal against the order of the Appellate Court.
The core issue involved in the case was whether the decision of the appellate court was right in acquittal of the accused. The accused submitted before the Court that they exercised the right of self-defense. This submission of the accused was rejected by the High Court after a careful perusal of Sections 96 to 102 of the I.P.C The High Court relied upon Supreme Court precedent of Darshan Singh v State of Punjab and found that in the present case the principles on a plea of self defence were not satisfied. Further reliance was placed upon Rizwan and Anr v State of Chattisgarh which mandated that the “burden of proof is on accused who sets up the plea of self defence” and the High Court found that the accused could not satisfy the Court that the right of self-defence was exercised within the ambit of law. The High Court was also deeply pained and expressed regret that the victim was got a compensation of only a meagre amount of Rs 1000 despite suffering multiple fractures and bodily injuries.
The Karnataka High Court thus in the instant case felt the need to evolve a mechanism for victim protection and issued guidelines upon the same relying upon Section 357A of the C.r.P.c. Salient features of these guidelines are that firstly, the Courts have to take into consideration the capability of the accused to pay the compensation; secondly, reference has to be made to the District Legal Services Authority to pay the compensation from the corpus fund created by the Karnataka Government in case the accused is not financially able to pay the compensation, thirdly; the trial court shall not only compensate while also seek to rehabilitate the victim and fourthly; that compensation must not be illusory in nature but proportional to the gravity of the offence committed. Further, the Court also issued guidelines to Public Prosecutors, the guidelines were twofold that one the Public Prosecutors shall request Trial Courts to award fine and compensation in letter and spirit of Section 357 and Section 357-A of the C.r.P.c and two that the Public Prosecutor shall make efforts to ensure the victim is rehabilitated and adequate compensation is also provided.
86540
103860
630
114
59824