Facts
The petitioner’s criminal revision had been disposed of on 11 September 2026.
Source reference: no citationIn that order, the Court reduced the custodial sentence and directed payment of compensation totalling ₹1,00,000, but did not specify whether it should be deposited with the trial court or paid directly to the victim.
Source reference: no citationThe petitioner’s counsel sought clarification, stating that the omission prevented compliance.
Source reference: p.1, para. 2The Court therefore replaced paragraph 8 of its earlier order.
Source reference: p.2, para. 3Issues
Whether the compensation directed in the revision should be paid directly to the victim or deposited with the trial court.
Source reference: p.1, para. 2Whether paragraph 8 of the order dated 11 September 2026 required replacement to specify the compensation amounts, recipient, and consequences of default.
Source reference: p.2, paras. 3–4Law Applied
The substituted direction concerns the petitioner’s sentences for offences under Sections 355 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, with the fine imposed for the offence under Section 294(b) IPC left undisturbed.
Source reference: p.2, para. 3The Court cited no precedent or separate statutory principle governing the clarification; it resolved the stated ambiguity by expressly identifying the victim as the recipient of the compensation.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
The Court accepted that the earlier direction did not state how the compensation was to be paid, creating uncertainty about compliance.
Source reference: p.1, para. 2It resolved that uncertainty by specifying compensation of ₹50,000 to the victim for the offence under Section 355 IPC and ₹50,000 to the victim for the offence under Section 323 IPC, each with a default sentence of three months’ simple imprisonment. It confirmed the fine sentence under Section 294(b) IPC and retained the direction for imprisonment till the rising of the Court.
Source reference: p.2, para. 3Holding
The Court replaced paragraph 8 of its order dated 11 September 2026 with a direction that the petitioner pay the two sums of compensation directly to the victim.
The substituted paragraph requires the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court to be served and the compensation to be paid within three weeks as stated there; on failure, the petitioner is to be secured to serve the default sentence.
Source reference: p.2, paras. 3–5All other observations and directions in the earlier order remain intact.
Source reference: p.2, para. 5Acts & Sections Cited
7 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Indian Penal Code, 18605
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20232
Original Court PDF
Charles MaryvsState by Sub Inspector of Police
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
