Courts must heed SC’s message. Payment to victim in lieu of sentencing inverts justice

SC on Tuesday read high courts and trial courts a lesson on sentencing for the nth time – reducing sentences in serious crimes goes against both letter and spirit of the law and is counterproductive in the long run, since the law then is no deterrent. SC was hearing an appeal against a Madras HC order that let off an attempt-to-murder convict on the ground he would financially compensate the victim. SC called out what it described as a persistent “misunderstanding” among courts – that convicts in grave offences can be leniently sentenced if they pay off the aggrieved party. 

For over two decades, SC has warned against judges projecting “undue sympathy” with “inadequate sentences that would do more harm to the justice system and undermine public confidence”. In 2004, it observed that “imposing a lenient sentence without considering its effect on social order may be a futile exercise.” It underlined serious offences – crimes against women top of the list – that demand proportionate punishment regardless of compensation or mitigating circumstances. Indeed, undue sympathy is most egregiously evident in cases involving crimes against women. Last March, SC took cognisance of an Allahabad HC order that almost carved out a new category of offence – “preparation to commit rape”, which would invite a lighter sentence. SC overturned that order too. But the pattern is all too familiar. Far too many judges in far too many courts have discussed or ordered that survivors of sexual assault should “marry the rapist” or accept payment as closure. Such orders invert justice.

Compensation has its place in criminal justice. Victim compensation acknowledges harm. But compensation in lieu of punishment is no justice. When courts dilute statutory punishments, they weaken deterrence and send a troubling signal that grave crimes are negotiable. Criminal law isn’t a bargain between offender and victim. It is strange high courts have to be reminded of that.

END OF ARTICLE