Introduction

The Supreme Court emphasized on the importance of timely victim compensation in its recent decisions, especially in cases involving bodily harm including sexual assault particularly where women and kids are concerned. Under Supreme Court’s directive the sessions court orders compensation under Section 357-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (now Section 396 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) to expedite benefits to victims. A Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Pankaj Mithal issued the directive while granting bail to an appellant, the Supreme Court emphasized victim compensation to be given and any delay in it defeats the purpose of it.

Facts of the Case

The Appellant was convicted under Section 376-D,354 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and was sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment along with fine for offenses under IPC and imprisonment of ten years with fine for offenses under POCSO Act 2012. The Appellant approached Bombay High Court in March 2024 for suspension of his sentence and release on bail, He subsequently approached the Supreme Court.

Contentions of the Parties

The appellant argued that he had already served 9 years 7 months of his sentence amounting to more than 50% of his Punishment, he further added that High Court prioritizing will further delay the hearing of appeal. In addition to this the appellant argued for similar treatment as his co-accused had already been granted bail by the High Court.

The state opposed the bail application citing seriousness of the crime and the young age of the victim. The Amicus Curiae also argued that the appeal lacked merit, in addition to this he also raised concerns regarding victim compensation as the Sessions court had not ordered compensation under Section 357-A of the CrPC and under POCSO Act 2012. He also highlighted the “Manodhairya Scheme” in Maharashtra supporting Victims of Sexual offenses and acid attacks. 

Court’s Observations

While the Supreme Court considered the lack of compensation granted in the impugned order passed by the trial court it observed that:

“On a reading of the order and judgment of the Trial Court, which has convicted the appellant herein 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/-), we find that no direction for payment of victim compensation to the second respondent/victim has been ordered. Such a lapse on the part of Sessions Court would only delay payment of any compensation under Section 357-A of the CrPC.”

Supreme Court went on to note that such an order should necessarily be issued under Section 357-A of the CrPC for avoiding  delays in the payment of compensation to the victims, The hon’ble Supreme Court further noted.

“In the circumstances, 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. Secondly, 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 and to ensure that the victim is paid the compensation at the earliest”

The bench appreciated that Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde(Amicus Curiae) had argued for a wider mandate on victim compensation to extend to all concerned cases.

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant, observing that the appellant had already served more than half of his sentence and the possibility of enhancement of sentence by the High Court was remote. He was enlarged on bail subject to conditions imposed by the Sessions Court, with a specific direction that the appeal proceedings should not be delayed on account of the relief.

Consequently, such an order was passed, and a copy of this direction was circulated to all the High Courts with the request that the Principal District Judges ensure the requirement in Sessions Judges mandating compensation to the victim in cases where it is so required. The Supreme Court further called upon the High Court to consider the issue of granting interim compensation to the victim under Rule 7 of the POCSO Rules, 2012 and Rule 9 of the POCSO Rules, 2020.

– Credits: By Anaida Khan Pursuing 5th year of BALLB (Hons.) from Dharmashashtra National Law University, Jabalpur