'Crime Can’t Be Bought Off': Supreme Court Slams ‘Compensation-for-Sentence’ Trend

The Supreme Court recently observed that treating monetary compensation as a substitute for punishment reflects a serious misunderstanding of criminal law and is a practice that must be condemned.

"We have observed a trend amongst various high courts wherein the sentences awarded to the accused persons by the trial court are reduced capriciously and mechanically, without any visible application of judicial mind,'' a Bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi said.

In the present case, Court set aside a Madras High Court judgment that had reduced a three-year jail sentence awarded to two men in an attempt to murder case to just two months, which they had already undergone. While doing so, the high court had increased the fine to Rs 50,000 each, directing it to be paid to the victim’s family.

The Supreme Court held that increasing compensation while reducing sentence in serious offences is a dangerous practice, as it risks sending a message that offenders can escape liability by paying money. It clarified that compensation is restitutive in nature and cannot replace punishment, which is meant to deter crime and send a clear message to society that wrongdoing carries consequences that cannot be bought off.

"Compensation payable to the victim is only restitutory in nature, and it cannot be considered as equivalent to or a substitute for punishment. Punishment is punitive in nature, and its object is to create an adequate deterrence against the said crime and to send a social message to the miscreants that any violation of the moral turpitude of society would come with consequences, which cannot merely be 'purchased by money','' the Bench said.

The Bench found that the high court’s decision went against established principles of criminal jurisprudence. It noted that the high court had relied on the passage of over ten and a half years since the incident and the fact that the victim was later killed by others. However, the Supreme Court said these factors were not properly analysed to justify reducing the sentence in a serious offence.

The Court held that the high court failed to adequately explain the circumstances under which it reduced the sentence and did not properly apply its judicial mind.

"Section 395 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (herein referred to as “BNSS”) (alternatively Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) recognises the loss caused to the victim and accordingly provides for granting monetary compensation to the victim. The said provision of victim compensation is not an alternative to the sentence or punishment imposed, however, the compensation is just an addition to the sentence already awarded,'' the Bench said.  

The Bench also referred to its earlier decision in Shivani Tyagi Vs State of UP & Another (2024), where it had set aside a high court order allowing payment of Rs 25 lakh to an acid attack victim in lieu of suspension of sentence, describing such payment as akin to “blood money”.

The bench relied upon Shivani Tyagi Vs State of UP & Another reported in 2024, in which this court set aside the High Court's judgment directing the accused to pay the acid attack victim a sum of Rs 25 lakh in lieu of suspension of sentence, saying that such payment was kind of “Blood Money” to the victim by the offenders.

Highlighting the need for consistency in sentencing, Court outlined key factors that must be considered, including proportionality, the facts and circumstances of the case, the impact on society, and aggravating and mitigating factors. It also referred to a Sanskrit verse, which stated that the supreme objective of law is the protection of society and creating a deterrence against crime by imposing adequate punishment.

In this case, Court noted that the trial court had already shown leniency by awarding three years of rigorous imprisonment, even though the maximum punishment under Section 307 of the IPC (corresponding to Section 109 of the BNS) can extend to ten years.

"Additionally, the undue sympathy shown by the high court herein was totally unwarranted, and such displays of overt sentiments risk undermining the administration of justice, as it is imperative that justice is not merely done but also seen to be done,'' the Bench said.  

Accordingly, Court restored the trial court’s judgment and directed the accused to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining part of their sentence.

Case Title: Parameshwari Vs The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors

Bench: Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi

Date of Judgment: February 17, 2026