ISSUE 4. WHETHER THE FAMILY OF THE ACCUSED ARE ENTITLED FOR
COMPENSATION
This issue Focus on whether the family of the accused are entitled for compensation
or not. Stating that the accused has committed a heinous crime, and the accused's
involvement in such a crime may disentitle their family to compensation.
Awarding compensation to the family of an accused rapist could be seen as going
against public interest and public sentiment. Compensation is typically awarded in
cases of unlawful killings or wrongful acts by the state, not in situations where the
state are performing their duties lawfully. Police action was a lawful, necessary and
proportionate response to an immediate threat. Therefore compensating the
accused’s family is not justified under the principles of law.
In this case, the police action was justified as it was necessary to prevent the
accused from escaping and to protect the public from harm.
The police action was in accordance with the Supreme Court guidelines on police
encounters, which state that the police should only use force as a last resort and that
the force used should be proportionate to the threat posed.
The Respondents humbly contend that the accused's involvement in a serious crime
like rape may disentitle their family to compensation, considering the severity of the
offense and public interest.
The accused's criminal history and involvement in a heinous crime may be seen as a
mitigating factor against compensation. Awarding compensation to the family of an
accused rapist could be perceived as going against public interest and public
sentiment. The state may argue that awarding compensation in such cases would
undermine the policy of zero tolerance towards heinous crimes like rape.
Some argue that compensating the family of an accused rapist would be morally and
ethically wrong, as it may be seen as rewarding or condoning the accused's actions.
The Supreme Court of India has established several grounds for denying
compensation to the accused in cases of heinous crimes encountered by police in
self-defense. Some of these grounds include:
Commission of a heinous crime If the accused is found to have committed a heinous
crime, such as murder, rape, or terrorism, the Supreme Court may deny
compensation. In this case the accused's has involved in heinous crime like rape and
murder. According to supreme court guidelines the accused's is not entitled for
compensation.
If the accused resists arrest or attempts to escape, the Supreme Court may consider
this a valid ground for denying compensation. The accused's attempt to escape from
police custody and snatch the gun from police. If the accused's actions pose a threat
to public safety, the Supreme Court may deny compensation. Use of excessive force
