SC warns against replacing jail with compensation: 'Grave offenses can't be absolved by paying money'

The Supreme Court on Tuesday stated that the practice of enhancing compensation payable to victims and reducing sentences, especially in cases of grave offenses, is dangerous, as it may send a wrong message to society that offenders can absolve themselves of liability by merely paying a monetary consideration.

A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi said that the misplaced understanding of various courts in treating compensation as a substitute for sentence is both a matter of concern and a practice that should be condemned.

The court said the object of punishment is to send a social message to the miscreants that any violation of the moral turpitude of society would come with consequences, which cannot merely be “purchased by money”.

In its judgment, the bench also cited a Sanskrit verse, which said, “The supreme objective of law is the protection of society and creating a deterrence against crime by imposing adequate punishment”.

The court set aside a Madras High Court's judgment, which, although it upheld the conviction of two persons in an attempt to murder case, reduced their sentence from three years' jail to the period already served by them and enhanced the fine amount to Rs 50,000 each.

Upon hearing advocate A Velan for the victim's family, the court held that the undue sympathy shown by the high court, in the present matter, was totally unwarranted, and such displays of overt sentiments risk undermining the administration of justice.

"We have observed a trend amongst various high courts wherein the sentences awarded to the accused persons by the trial court are reduced capriciously and mechanically, without any visible application of judicial mind," the bench said.

The court emphasised that certain basic factors should be kept in mind by the courts while dealing with the imposition of sentence, proportionality, consideration of facts and circumstances, impact on society, aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court said compensation payable to the victim is only restitutory in nature, and it cannot be considered as equivalent to or a substitute for punishment.

The court held that the high court acted in complete defiance of the law and created a travesty of the established criminal jurisprudence in arriving at its conclusion.

The high court had noted that more than 10 ½ years had elapsed since the incident and that the victim had been murdered by some other persons a few years later. Based on these aspects, the high court modified the sentence awarded to the accused persons.

The court directed that the private respondents surrender before the trial court within four weeks to serve the remaining part of the sentence awarded to them.