Sessions Courts Must Order Victim Compensation In Cases Of Sexual Offences Against Minors And Women: Supreme Court

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

The Court observed that the lack of a compensation order by the Sessions Court delays benefits to victims. This direction must be implemented swiftly by legal services authorities, with provision for interim compensation when appropriate, the Court held.

“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 Court held.

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

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

Advocate Karl Rustomkhan for the appellant argued that he had already served nine years and seven months of his sentence, exceeding 50 percent of his term. He contended that the appellant had a strong case on merits and cited that the co-accused had been granted bail by the High Court. Given the High Court's priority for older cases, he argued that the appeal would face delays and sought suspension of sentence and bail.

Advocate Prastut Mahesh Dalvi for the state opposed the appellant's release, highlighting the gravity of the crimes and the young age of the victim, approximately 13 years. Additionally, Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, along with Advocate-on-Record Mukund P. Unny, submitted that the appeal lacked merit and should be dismissed.

Hegde also raised concerns about victim compensation. He pointed out that the Sessions Court had not ordered victim compensation under Section 357-A of the CrPC or the POCSO Act. Drawing attention to the existing “Manodhairya Scheme” in Maharashtra, which provides support for victims of sexual offenses and acid attacks, he emphasized the need for effective implementation of the compensation schemes. He urged the Court to issue directions for enforcement, suggesting that such mandates should extend to all similar cases, particularly involving minors or women.

The Court granted the appellant bail, noting that he had served more than half his sentence and that there was no likelihood of the sentence being enhanced by the High Court. The Court ordered the appellant's release on bail, subject to conditions set by the Sessions Court, and clarified that this relief should not delay the appeal proceedings.

The Court directed that a copy of this order be circulated to all High Courts to ensure that Principal District Judges pass it on to Sessions Judges, who are expected to mandate victim compensation as necessary. Further, in the current case, the Court recommended that the High Court consider granting interim compensation to the victim under Rule 7 of the POCSO Rules, 2012, and Rule 9 of the POCSO Rules, 2020.

The Court recorded its appreciation for the assistance provided by Hegde and Unny in addressing victim compensation matters. With these observations, the Supreme Court allowed and disposed of the appeal.

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

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

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 860