Appeals - Enhancement of Sentence and Acquittal - Procedure Adopted by High Court - Whether in Accordance with Law - Analysis of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Victim Compensation and Sentence Imposition: The Supreme Court analyzed the procedure adopted by the High Court in two appeals, one concerning the enhancement of sentence and the other related to the acquittal of certain accused individuals. The court examined the legality of the High Court's action in modifying the sentence and ordering compensation to the victim. The analysis primarily focused on Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which pertains to the power of the court to order compensation to victims.

Victim Compensation and Criminal Justice System: The court emphasized the importance of victim compensation within the criminal justice system, highlighting that victims often suffer significantly as a result of criminal offenses. The provision of victim compensation aims to address the needs of victims and their families, offering some form of solace and restitution.

Distinction Between Sentence and Compensation: The court clarified that victim compensation is distinct from the sentence imposed upon the convict. While the sentence serves a punitive purpose, compensation aims to provide restitution to the victim for the loss or injury suffered. Therefore, the court underscored that the imposition of compensation should not influence or reduce the sentence imposed on the convict.

Judicial Approach to Victim Compensation: The court emphasized a victim-centric approach to victim compensation, emphasizing the importance of considering the victim's loss or injury when determining compensation. The court also highlighted the need to assess the convict's capacity to pay compensation, without conflating compensation with punishment or atonement.

Modification of High Court's Order: While the court acknowledged the error in the High Court's approach, it opted not to direct the respondents to undergo further imprisonment. Instead, considering the time elapsed since the incident and the amount already deposited by the respondents, the court ordered each respondent to deposit an additional sum of Rs 5 lakh, totaling Rs 10 lakh, within a specified period. The total amount would be disbursed to the appellant (original complainant) after proper identification.

Disposition of Appeals: The appeals were disposed of in light of the court's analysis and the modifications made to the High Court's order. Any pending applications were also disposed of accordingly.

Background: Since the issues raised in both the captioned appeals are the same, the parties are also the same and the challenge is also to the self-same judgment and order passed by the High Court, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

Facts: The appellant before this Court is the original first informant (complainant) who lodged a First Information Report (FIR) at the Surendranagar City Police Station against five accused persons. The respondents before this Court are the original accused Nos 1 and 2, who were ultimately convicted by the Sessions Court for various offenses.

Trial and Appeal: The respondents were convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Court while the other accused were acquitted. The respondents appealed against their conviction to the High Court, along with appeals from the appellant and the State of Gujarat. The High Court disposed of all appeals by a common judgment, modifying the sentence and ordering compensation to the victims.

High Court Judgment: The High Court reduced the sentence imposed by the trial court from five years to four years for the offense under Section 325 of the IPC. Additionally, the High Court ordered the respondents to pay compensation to the victim, relying on the decision in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra.

Appellant's Argument: The appellant contended that the High Court's action was impermissible in law, as compensation should not affect the substantive sentence imposed by the court.

Respondent's Argument: The respondents opposed the appeals, arguing that the High Court's order was legally sound and that considerable time had elapsed since the incident.

Analysis of Section 357 of CrPC: The Supreme Court analyzed Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing the importance of victim compensation within the criminal justice system.

Distinction Between Sentence and Compensation: The Court clarified the distinction between sentence and compensation, highlighting that compensation aims to provide restitution to the victim and should not influence the sentence imposed on the convict.

Judicial Approach to Victim Compensation: The Court emphasized a victim-centric approach to victim compensation, emphasizing the need to consider the victim's loss or injury when determining compensation.

Modification of High Court's Order: While acknowledging the High Court's error, the Court opted not to direct further imprisonment for the respondents. Instead, it ordered them to deposit additional compensation to be disbursed to the appellant.

Disposition: The appeals were disposed of in light of the Court's analysis and the modifications made to the High Court's order. Any pending applications were also disposed of accordingly.