SURESH &ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2014] 13 S.C.R. 760 · Decided: 28-11-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 760 
SURESH &ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 420 of 2012) 
NOVEMBER 28, 2014 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860- ss. 302134, 364-A, 201and120-8 
C - Kidnapping and murder of two persons - Conviction by 
courts below -
On appeal, held: Conviction justified -
Recovery of dead bodies of the deceased and their personal 
belongings at the instance of the accused and the failure to 
explain the fact within the exclusive knowledge of the accused 
o is an additional circumstance against them - Evidence Act, 
1872-s. 106. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 357 A - Interim 
compensation - Grant of - Held: ft is duty of the Court to 
grant interim compensation to victim either on application or 
E suo motu - Such duty continues at every stage of the case -
In the present case, denial of interim compensation by High 
Court was not justified - State directed to pay Rs. 10 lakhs 
as interim compensation to the family of the deceased. 
F 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In the present case, Section 106 of the 
Evidence Act is clearly attracted which requires the 
accuse·d to explain the facts in their exclusive 
knowledge. No doubt, the burden of proof is on the 
G prosecution and Section 106 i.s not meant to relieve it of 
that duty but the said provision is attracted when it is 
impossible or it is proportionately difficult for the 
prosecution to establish facts which are strictly within 
H the knowledge of the accused. Recovery of dead bodies 
760 
SURESH v. STATE OF HARYANA 
761 
from covered gutters and personal belongings of the A 
deceased from other places disclosed by the accused 
stood fully established. It casts a duty on the accused 
as to how they alone had the information leading to 
recoveries which was admissible under Section 27 of 
the Evidence Act. Failure of the accused to give an 
B 
explanation or giving offalse explanation is an additional 
circumstance against the accused. Therefore, the 
conviction and sentence of the appellants cannot be 
interfered with. [Paras 8 and 9][766-F-H; 767-B-C] 
State of Rajasthan v. Jaggu Ram 2008 (12) SCC 
51 - relied on. 
2.1 The object and purpose of s.357 A Cr.P.C. is to 
enable the Court to direct the State to pay compensation 
c 
to the victim where the compensation under Section 357 D 
was not adequate or where the case ended in acquittal 
or discharge and the victim was required to be 
rehabilitated. Even after expiry of 5 years since the 
enactement of Section 357 A, the award of compensation 
has not become a rule and interim compensation,· which E 
is very important, is not being granted by the Courts. 
The upper limit of compensation fixed by some of the 
States is arbitrarily low and is not in keeping with the 
object of the legislation. [Paras 12 and 13][767-G-H; F 
793-G-H; 794-A] 
2.2 It is the duty of the Courts, on taking cognizance 
of a criminal offence, to ascertain whether there is 
tangible material to show commission of crime, whether 
the victim is identifiable and whether the victim of crime G 
needs immediate financial relief. On being satisfied on 
an application or on its _own motion, the Court ought to 
direct grant of interim compensation, subject to final 
compensation being determined later. Such duty 
continues at every stage of a criminal case where · H 
762 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 
A compensation ought to be given and has not been given, 
irrespective of the application by the victim. At the stage 
of final hearing it is obligatory on the part of the Court to 
advert to the provision and record a finding whether a 
case for grant of compensation has been made out and, 
B if so, who is entitled to compensation and how much. 
Award of such compensation can be interim. Gravity of 
offence and need of victim are some of the guiding 
factors to be kept in mind, apart from such other factors 
as may be found relevant in the facts and circumstances 
C of an individual case. [Para 14][794-B-E] 
2.3 There is also need to consider upward revision 
in the scale for compensation and pending such 
consideration to adopt the scale notified by the State of 
D Kerala in its scheme, unless the scale awarded by any 
other State or Union Territory is higher. The States of 
Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Meghalaya and 
Telangana are directed to notify their schemes. It is also 
directed that a copy of this judgment be forwarded to 
E National Judicial Academy
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.