Deprecating the practice of accused entering into settlement with victims to escape punishment for their crime, the Supreme Court has, in a recent judgement, held that criminal justice system is not meant just to protect the victim of crime, but society at large.
Asking courts below to show no leniency to persons accused of serious crimes, the apex court took exception to a Rajasthan High Court order permitting two persons accused of attempting a murderous assault on a man using dangerous weapons, to walk free after paying Rs 10,000 to the victim. Trial court had punished the accused with 10 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000 each.
Realising that the HC order was a mistake in law and in violation of various principles laid down by the apex court, the bench of Justices KS Radhakrishnan and AK Sikri set aside the decision allowing settlement and permitted HC to decide the matter on merits within six months.
laying down the danger inherent in the HC order, the apex bench said, “The HC, in a cursory manner, without application of mind, blindly accepted the statement of the parties that they had settled their disputes and differences and took the view that it was a crime against ‘an individual’ rather than against the ‘society at large’.”
The incident was of October 30, 2008 when the two accused aged 26 and 28 years attacked a man with iron rods and iron strips, as he refused to issue them goods on credit till his earlier dues were settled. The accused paid a compensation sum of Rs 10,000 to the victim and appealed to the HC to end the case against them under IPC Section 307.
To its surprise, the apex court discovered that Section 307 was a non-compoundable offence, which meant that the punished cannot be condoned on payment of fine. But focusing on the larger issue, the bench said, “Criminal justice system has a larger objective to achieve, that is safety and protection of the people at large and it would be a lesson not only to the offender, but to the individuals at large so that such crimes would not be committed by any one and money would not be a substitute for the crime committed against the society.”
Judges felt that any leniency would encourage further criminal acts endangering the peaceful coexistence and welfare of society at large.