compensation for the victims and their families

Supreme Court of India
Sushil Ansal vs State Thr.Cbi on 5 March, 2014
Author: .....J.
Bench: T.S. Thakur, Gyan Sudha Misra
 REPORTABLE
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITION
 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.597 OF 2010
Sushil Ansal Appellant
 Versus
State Through CBI Respondent
(With Crl. Appeals No.598/2010, 599/2010, 600-602/2010, 604/2010, 605-
616/2010 and 617-627/2010)215.

The third circumstance which dissuades us from interfering with the sentence awarded by the
High Court is the fact that the appellant-Ansals did not have any criminal background and are both
senior citizens, whose company has already been adjudged liable to pay compensation to the victims
besides punitive damages awarded against them. This Court has in MCD, Delhi v. AVUT (supra)
arising out of a writ petition seeking compensation for the victims and their families awarded
compensation @ Rs.10 lakhs in the case of death of those aged more than 20 years and 7.5 lakhs in
the case of those aged 20 years and less besides compensation of Rs.1 lakh to those injured in the
incident with interest @ 9% p.a. and punitive damages of Rs.25 lakhs. There is no dispute that the
Sushil Ansal vs State Thr.Cbi on 5 March, 2014
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/9513811/ 89
amount awarded by the High Court has been deposited by the Ansal Theaters & Clubotels (P) Ltd. in
the proportion in which the claim has been awarded. The award so made is in tune with the spirit of
the view taken by this Court in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 6 SCC 770
where this Court noted a global paradigm shift away from retributive justice towards victimology or
restitution in criminal law. There is no gainsaying that in the absence of the order passed by this
Court in MCD, Delhi v. AVUT (supra), we may have ourselves determined the compensation payable
to the victims and awarded the same against Ansal brothers. Any such exercise is rendered
unnecessary by the said decision especially because a reading of sub-section (5) of Section 357 of the
Cr.P.C. makes it manifest that compensation awarded by a Criminal Court under Section 357 cannot
be more than the sum that may be payable or recovered as compensation in a subsequent civil suit.
That provision was interpreted by this Court in Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd.
(2007) 6 SCC 528 to hold that the amount of compensation under Section 357 should ordinarily be
less than the amount which can be granted by a civil Court upon appreciation of the evidence
brought before it for losses that it may have reasonably suffered.