Rape victims cannot be deprived of compensation even if it wasn’t brought up during trial: HC

Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj while allowing the petition of the victim’s father, has directed the DLSA to award a total compensation of Rs 4,50,000 as per the Haryana Victim Compensation Scheme, 2013. The amount of Rs 4,00,000 already disbursed shall be adjusted from the total amount and the balance amount of Rs 50,000 be released in favour of the petitioner, said the HC.

As per the case, the petitioner’s eight-year-old minor daughter was raped on August 11, 2014, following which a First Information Report (FIR) was registered at the Sector 40 police station in Gurugram. The accused was convicted in June 2015 by the trial court of Gurugram, and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.

The case of the victim was, however, not forwarded to the Legal Services Authority, Gurugram, for grant of compensation under the Haryana Victims Compensation Scheme, 2013, even though the daughter of the petitioner was entitled to the compensation as per the scheme. The scheme was in force at the time of the incident.

Thereafter an application seeking a grant of compensation or rehabilitation under the State Compensation Scheme mentioning subsequent developments was submitted. It was taken up by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Gurugram, for the offences under Pocso Act, 2012, and the application was allowed on October 31, 2022. The Pocso court awarded a compensation of Rs 4 lakh. The payment was released to the petitioner on January 18, 2023.

The counsel for the petitioner, meanwhile, contended before the HC that the incident took place on August 11, 2014, and the victim’s compensation Scheme of 2013 was then in force. The said scheme has been appended, as per which if the victim is less than 14 years, the compensation prescribed in the schedule is to be increased by 50 per cent over and above the amount specified. A minimum compensation of Rs 3 lakh has been prescribed for the victim of rape under the said scheme, the petitioner argued.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the victim was 8 years of age, she would be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs 1.50 lakh over and above Rs 3 lakh as minimum compensation. She is now entitled to Rs 4.50 lakh as per the scheme of 2013, and hence, a just and proper compensation in terms of the scheme has been denied to the petitioner, the counsel argued.

The Bench of Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj said, “In the present case, the compensation has now been ordered by the court to be paid. Even though, the said order is not a subject matter of challenge in the present case and ordinarily a person should raise a challenge to such order, however, considering the design objective of the scheme which is compensatory in nature for the wrong done to a person, directing the petitioner to file a fresh petition for the balance amount of Rs 50,000 would only add to his miseries. The cost of litigation may itself take away the benefit which she claims to be due to her.”

The HC further opined that “the victim cannot be denied the benefit of a more benevolent scheme merely due to an act of oversight by the court. The Act of Court should not prejudice her claim to just compensation. She cannot be now deprived of her compensation merely because the said aspect could not be brought up at the time when trial was concluded. The victim being a minor and 10 years of age on the date when she was violated and also when the matter was decided, the Court is the supreme guardian of her best interests as parens patriae. Thus, the obligation was cast on the court to perfect her best interest.”