Courts Should Order Victim Compensation in Case of Sexual Crimes Against Minors and Women: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently ruled that in cases involving bodily harm, especially in cases of sexual assault involving minors or women, Magistrate Courts must award victim compensation under Section 357-A of the CrPC(396 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).

The Court observed that the failure to award compensation by the Chamber Court delayed the benefits provided to the victims. The court found that this direction should be implemented expeditiously by legal services authorities, with provision for interim compensation where appropriate.

“Especially sexual assault against underage children and women, etc. We order that the Criminal Court of Peace, which decides a case regarding bodily injuries, shall decide on the payment of compensation to the victim, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and based on the evidence. It is recorded at the time of making the decision regarding the conviction or acquittal of the defendant. Secondly, the said order should be implemented in writing and in spirit and in the fastest manner possible by the District Legal Services Authority or the State Legal Services Authority, as the case may be, and compensation should be paid to the victim as soon as possible.”, the Court ruled.

a bench Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Pankaj Mithal He gave this direction while granting bail to the appellant who was convicted under Sections 376-D, 354 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act.

The appellant had challenged the Bombay High Court’s dismissal of his application on March 14, 2024, seeking stay of sentence and grant of bail under Section 389 of the CrPC. The appellant was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs 10,000 under the IPC and ten years’ imprisonment with a fine of Rs 2,500 under the POCSO Act.

The appellant’s lawyer, Karl Rustomkhan, argued that he had been sentenced to nine years and seven months in prison, exceeding 50 percent of his sentence. He submitted that the appellant had a strong case on the merits and noted that the other accused had been granted bail by the High Court. He argued that there would be delays in the appeal, given the priority given by the Supreme Court to old cases, and requested a postponement of the sentence and release on bail.

State lawyer Prastut Mahesh Dalvi opposed the release of the appellant, emphasizing the seriousness of the crimes and the age of the victim being approximately 13 years old. Also, Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde and Advocate of Record Mukund P. Unny submitted that the appeal lacks merit and should be dismissed.

Hegde also expressed concerns about victim compensation. He pointed out that the Sessions Court did not award victim compensation under Section 357-A of the CrPC or the POCSO Act. He emphasized the need for effective implementation of compensation schemes, highlighting the existing ‘Manodhairya Scheme’ in Maharashtra, which provides support to victims of sexual crimes and acid attacks. He urged the Court to issue directions for enforcement, arguing that such powers should be extended to all similar cases, especially those involving minors or women.

The court decided to release the appellant on bail, noting that he had served more than half of his sentence and that there was no possibility of the sentence being increased by the High Court. The court ordered the appellant to be released on bail, subject to the conditions set by the Court of Appeal, and declared that this measure should not delay the appeal proceedings.

The Court ordered that a copy of this order be distributed to all High Courts to enable the District Chief Judges to forward it to the Sessions Judges, who are expected to seek victim compensation as required. Further, in the present case, the Court recommended that the High Court consider granting interim relief to the victim under Rule 7 of the 2012 POCSO Rules and Rule 9 of the 2020 POCSO Rules.

The court noted its appreciation for the assistance provided by Hegde and Unny in addressing victim compensation issues. In line with these opinions, the Supreme Court accepted the objection and rejected it.

Case no. – Petition for Special Permission No. 13890/2024 (Crl.)

Case Title – Saibaj Noormohammad v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 860