Kerala HC Directs DLSA Kasaragod to Determine Compensation for Acid Attack Victims After Trial Court Omitted Section 357A Recommendation

Justice Jobin Sebastian held that Section 357A imposes a duty on criminal courts to recommend victim compensation, and exercised Section 482 powers to remedy the trial court's omission in a 2014 acid attack case.

The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam has directed the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Kasaragod, to conduct an enquiry and determine compensation payable to four acid attack victims under Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Justice Jobin Sebastian, sitting singly, found that the Sessions Court, Kasaragod had convicted the accused in 2015 under Section 326A of the IPC and sentenced him to twelve years’ rigorous imprisonment, yet omitted to make any recommendation under Section 357A to the DLSA. The court held this omission constituted a failure of a statutory duty, and invoked its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to remedy it — directing the DLSA to complete its assessment preferably within two months.

The Acid Attack and the 2015 Conviction

The case arises from Crime No. 192 of 2014 registered at Chittarikkal Police Station, Kasaragod. The sole accused was charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 307 and 326A of the Indian Penal Code. Upon conclusion of the trial in S.C. No. 649 of 2014, the Sessions Judge convicted the accused under Section 326A of the IPC and acquitted him of the charge under Section 307.

The four petitioners — Bijo V K, Omanakuttan P, Jebin, and Niranjana (a minor represented by her mother) — were the injured witnesses in the case. For the Section 326A conviction, the accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for twelve years and directed to pay a fine of Rs. 40,000. In default, he was to undergo a further two years of rigorous imprisonment. Out of the fine amount, if paid or realised, Rs. 25,000 was directed to PW1 and Rs. 5,000 each to PWs 2 to 4 as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Code.

No recommendation was made by the Sessions Judge to the DLSA under Section 357A for any further victim compensation.

Sessions Court Declined to Act; Victims Moved the High Court

Eight years after the conviction, the petitioners filed C.M.P. No. 2135 of 2023 before the Sessions Court, Kasaragod, seeking a post-judgment recommendation under Section 357A so that the DLSA could assess compensation under the Kerala Victim Compensation Scheme. The Sessions Judge dismissed that application. The reason given was that, since a criminal appeal against the conviction was already pending before the High Court, it would not be proper for the trial court to pass any order that might amount to filling up a lacuna in the judgment already pronounced.

The petitioners then filed Crl.M.C. No. 6038 of 2023 before the High Court, seeking the recommendation directly from this Court.

The Legal Question: Is Section 357A a Duty or a Discretion?

The central question before the court was whether a criminal court’s power to recommend compensation under Section 357A of the Code is a discretion that may be exercised or declined, or whether it carries the character of a statutory obligation that must be consciously addressed in every appropriate case.

Justice Sebastian drew on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra [2013 KHC 4371], which held that Section 357 of the Code confers “a power coupled with a duty on the Courts to apply its mind to the question of awarding compensation in every criminal case.” The Supreme Court had reasoned that the provision was intended to reassure victims that they are not forgotten in the criminal justice system, and that failing to apply the mind to compensation would defeat the very object of the provision.

The court also relied on a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Xxxx v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC 1032], which held in the context of acid attacks that the expression “may” in sub-section (3) of Section 357A must be read as mandatory, having regard to the object and purpose of the provision. The Division Bench had held that in acid attack cases, courts are under an obligation to apply their mind to compensation and pass appropriate orders to secure adequate rehabilitation for victims.

Why the Rs. 40,000 Fine Was Insufficient

The court examined the nature of the compensation already awarded. The fine of Rs. 40,000, even if fully realised, amounted to Rs. 25,000 for PW1 and Rs. 5,000 each for PWs 2 to 4. Justice Sebastian held this was “manifestly inadequate” to compensate the victims for the pain, suffering, permanent disfigurement, trauma, medical expenses, and other lifelong consequences of an acid attack.

The court went further on the question of certainty. There was, it observed, no guarantee that the fine would actually be recovered from the accused. Compensation payable to victims could not be made dependent on the recovery of a fine amount. Section 357A compensation is independent of, and in addition to, compensation that may be awarded under Section 357. The entitlement of victims to the Victim Compensation Scheme could not be curtailed merely because a fine had been imposed.

The court acknowledged that no sum of money could truly compensate for the physical agony, permanent disfigurement, and emotional trauma suffered by acid attack victims. It held nonetheless that a reasonable award would provide significant solace, and that the failure to make a Section 357A recommendation in a case of this nature constituted a serious omission.

Pendency of the Accused’s Appeal Not a Bar

The State, through Senior Public Prosecutor Sri. Navas V. A., brought to the court’s attention that the accused had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 192 of 2015 before the High Court challenging the conviction and sentence, and that the appeal remained pending. The prosecution submitted that the issue raised in the petition could be more effectively considered by the Bench hearing that criminal appeal.

Justice Sebastian acknowledged the pendency of the appeal but declined to treat it as a reason to deny relief. The appeal had been pending since 2015 — more than a decade. In the peculiar facts of the case, the mere pendency of an appeal was not a ground to decline the relief sought. The court noted that Section 357A compensation is independent in character and that withholding the recommendation would leave the victims without access to rehabilitation funds for an indeterminate period.

The court held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code is designed to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process. Where a statutory obligation had been omitted, and that omission deprived victims of the benefits of the Victim Compensation Scheme, the High Court was justified in exercising that jurisdiction. Granting the relief, it held, would not offend judicial propriety or judicial discipline.

Outcome

Justice Jobin Sebastian allowed Crl.M.C. No. 6038 of 2023 on 28 July 2026. The DLSA, Kasaragod, was directed to conduct an enquiry and determine the quantum of compensation payable to PWs 1 to 4 under Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within two months from the date of the order. The DLSA was further directed to take all necessary steps to ensure that the compensation determined is disbursed to the victims without unnecessary delay.