Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has ordered that sessions courts handling cases of sexual assault involving women and minor children must include orders for victim compensation in their judgments. These compensation directions will be enforced by either the District or State Legal Services Authority.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Pankaj Mithal further noted that sessions courts could also order interim compensation based on the specific circumstances of each case.

"We direct that a Sessions Court, which adjudicates a case concerning the bodily injuries such as sexual assault etc particularly on minor children and women shall order for victim compensation to be paid having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and based on the evidence on record, while passing the judgment either convicting or acquitting the accused," the bench said.

Court clarified that the said direction must be implemented by the District Legal Services Authority or State Legal Services Authority, as the case may be, in letter and spirit and in the quickest manner to ensure that the victim is paid the compensation at the earliest.

Dealing with a plea against rejection of suspension of sentence, the bench noted that Section 357-A of the CrPC (Section 396 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) specifically speaks of victim compensation scheme under the said provision.

In the case, the bench found that the trial court, which had convicted the appellant for the offence, inter alia, under Section 376-D of the IPC, except imposing the fine of Rs 12,500 (Rs 10,000 + Rs 2,500), had not directed for payment of victim compensation.

"Such a lapse on the part of Sessions Court would only delay payment of any compensation under Section 357-A of the CrPC," the bench said.

For the purpose of implementing the provision in letter and spirit, the bench directed that a copy of the present order be circulated by the Registry of the top court to all the High Courts addressed to the Registrar Generals of the High Courts, who shall transmit the said order to all the Principal District Judges in all the Districts of the respective States and for onward transmission to the Sessions Judges dealing with such matters, who will be under an obligation to order for victim compensation in an appropriate case.

"In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the second respondent, the victim shall also be entitled to be considered for compensation under Rule 7 of the POCSO Rules, 2012 and now under Rule 9 of the POCSO Rules, 2020," the bench said.

In the case, since the Sessions Judge had not awarded any victim compensation to the second respondent, the bench asked the High Court to consider the case for the purpose of awarding an interim compensation at the earliest.

Before the apex court, amicus curiae submitted that a scheme is in vogue in every State for the victim compensation but it is hardly being implemented in its true letter and spirit.

He said that in the State of Maharashtra “Manodhairya Scheme” for rape victims, children who are victims of sexual offences and acid attack (women and children) is in operation but it is not known whether in the instant case, the second respondent/victim had been given any benefit under the said Scheme. 

He also submitted that under Section 357-B of the CrPC, the compensation is in addition to the fine under Section 376-D of the IPC and there is also provision for treatment of victims, etc. but the same is not being implemented in its true letter and spirit.

The counsel asked the court to issue directions to be applicable to all the courts in the country particularly when the victim is a minor or a woman.

In the case, the court also found that the appellant was entitled to suspension of sentence and release on bail during the pendency of appeal before the High Court as he had completed more than 50% of the 20 years jail term awarded by the trial court related to sexual assault of the 13-year-old girl child. It also noted a co-accused had also been released on bail.

Case Title: Saibaj Noormohammad Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr