Sexual offence against minors, women | Sessions Courts must order compensation: SC

“… 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 top court said in its November 4 order.

The bench passed this direction while granting bail to a man convicted and sentenced under the IPC and the POCSO Act. The appellant had challenged the Bombay High Court’s dismissal of his application seeking suspension of sentence and bail, pending a final decision on his appeal.

The Maharashtra government urged the top court to reject the request bearing in mind that the appellant and the co-accused had taken advantage of the victim, aged about 13. Amicus curiae and Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde along with Advocate Mukund P Unny too opposed the request for suspending the sentence.

After perusing the Sessions Court’s order, the apex court noted that “except imposing the fine… we find that no direction for payment of compensation to the… victim has been ordered.” “Such a lapse on the part of Sessions Court would only delay payment of any compensation under Section 357A of the CrPC,” it said.

The court also noted that the appellant had already completed little more than half the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court, and said there was no likelihood of the sentence being enhanced as such by the high court. “In the circumstances, we find that the appellant is entitled to suspension of sentence and release on bail”.

Hegde also informed the court that in this case, the Sessions Court has not ordered for grant of compensation under Section 357A of the CrPC (Section 396 of the BNSS, 2023) or under the POCSO Act and Rules made thereunder, and that in the absence of such a direction, compensation would not be paid to the victim.

He said that in Maharashtra there exists the ‘Manodhairya Scheme’ for rape victims, children who are victims of sexual offences, and acid attack (women and children), “but it is not known whether in the instant case, the… victim has been given any benefit under the said scheme”.

The top court also said that “there can also be a direction for payment of interim compensation which could be made by the Sessions Court depending upon the facts of each case.” “Insofar as the present case is concerned, since the Sessions Judge has not awarded any victim compensation to the second respondent, we request the High Court to consider the case for the purpose of awarding the said compensation, which shall be interim in nature, at the earliest,” it said.

Curated For You

China denies allegation of harassment of Arunachal woman at Shanghai airport

‘Definitely a misfit’: Supreme Court upholds dismissal of Christian Army officer for refusal to enter Sarva Dharma Sthal

‘Demeaning, humiliating’: BJD’s Rajya Sabha MP shoots off scathing letter to party chief Naveen Patnaik