Ruling against monetary relief to rape victims

However, the court ruled that the nature of the offence did not deserve the slightest reduction in jail term. The accused, 35 years of age at the time of the incident, had assaulted a 10-year-oldminor who looked upon him as an elderly uncle. The girl had come to meet his daughter, who was her friend.

After gagging the minor, he tried to rape her. But the girl had managed to escape, police records showed. The girl’s counsel argued that any mercy shown to the accused would take its toll on the credibility of the judicial system.

The judge also observed that such a depraved act did not deserve an iota of sympathy. He said the victim would feel cheated if she was given monetary compensation for an experience which she had forgotten after great difficulty. The verdict is an exception to the general rule of reducing jail terms on the ground that re-arresting the accused after a long gap does no good for the victim’s cause. Justice Sahai categorically stated that while other offences may rightly warrant such allowances, a sexual offence of this kind couldn’t be treated in the same manner.

Interestingly, a division bench of Justice V P Tipnis and A B Palkar had recently directed Rs 4 lakh compensationto a rape victim in Raigad district. As per the evidence, the victim had consented to the sexual relations. However, the judge ruled that since she was a minor at that time, the sexual act amounted to rape; therefore, she deserved a substantial sum from the accused in order to lead a respectable future.

The judges had also reduced the jail term of the accused on “special” grounds, including the amount deposited by the accused for the victim’s future. They had observed that the settlement arrived between the accused and victim was in the latter’s interest, as she could fall back on a substantial sum in the future. This August 1997 ruling had sparked off a serious debate over the propriety of monetary compensation to rape victims.