The Supreme Court on Tuesday (January 21, 2026) expressed serious concern over the adequacy of compensation offered in a case involving the death of a 13-year-old boy, observing that human life cannot be undervalued. The court indicated that the sentence awarded earlier could be enhanced if a reasonable compensation is not paid.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from a review petition filed by Abdul Sattar, challenging a previous order passed in March 2024. The case relates to a fatal accident in which a minor lost his life. The petitioner had approached the Supreme Court seeking commutation of sentence.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Seeks CBI, ED Status Reports in Alleged ₹1.5 Lakh Crore Bank Fraud Linked to Anil
Earlier, the Court had shown willingness to consider leniency, provided the petitioner paid suitable compensation to the victim’s family. Notice was also issued to the complainant, the father of the deceased, who appeared virtually during the hearing.
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, the Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Prasanna B. Varale noted that the petitioner had offered only ₹2 lakh as compensation.
The Court was clearly dissatisfied. “In our view, the same is not adequate in a case where a 13-year-old child lost his life,” the Bench observed.
The judges indicated that a compensation of ₹4 lakh would be more appropriate under the circumstances. The petitioner’s counsel was granted time to seek instructions on this aspect.
The Bench also remarked that considerable judicial time had been spent in a “benevolent exercise” to provide relief to the petitioner while ensuring some financial support to the grieving father.
Read Also:- Leopard Attack or Murder? Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Key Accused in Shocking Yavat Killing Case
Court’s Decision
Taking a firm stance, the Court warned that if the petitioner fails to pay the enhanced compensation, the sentence could be increased.
“In a case where a 13-year-old boy has died, the sentence awarded appears to be less,” the Bench said, issuing notice on why the existing three-month sentence should not be enhanced to one year.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on February 5, 2026, and the petitioner has been directed to file a reply before the next date.
Case Title: Abdul Sattar vs State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No.: Review Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 45337/2025
Case Type: Criminal Review Petition
Decision Date: January 21, 2026
