Law Web: Supreme Court: Sessions Court Must Order Victim Compensation In Cases Of Bodily Injury To Women And Children

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.

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.

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.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024

(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 13890/2024)

SAIBAJ NOORMOHAMMAD SHAIKH Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR

Dated: NOVEMBER 04, 2024.

Leave granted.

By order dated 14.10.2024, Shri Sanjay Hegde, learned

senior counsel was requested to appear as Amicus Curiae for

respondent no.2/victim along with Shri Mukund P. Unny, learned

Advocate-on-Record (AOR) as instructing counsel in the matter.

We have heard Shri Karl Rustomkhan, learned counsel for

the appellant, Shri Prastut Mahesh Dalvi, learned counsel for

the respondent/State and Shri Sanjay Hegde, learned senior

counsel/Amicus Curiae along with Shri Mukund P. Unny, learned

counsel for respondent no.2/victim and perused the material on

record.

Being aggrieved by dismissal of the Interim Application

No.951/2020 in Criminal Appeal No.306/2020 on 14.03.2024 by

the Bombay High Court under Section 389 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure of India, 1973 (CrPC) seeking suspension of

sentence and grant of bail, the appellant is before this

Court.

Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellant was

convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376-D,

354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (‘POCSO Act’

for short) and sentenced to suffer twenty years imprisonment

with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo simple

imprisonment for six months. For the offence punishable under

Section 4 of the POCSO Act, the appellant was sentenced to

undergo ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of

Rs.2,500/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for

one month.

Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed,

the appellant has preferred Criminal Appeal No.306/2020 before

the High Court. In the said appeal, Interim Application

No.951/2020 was filed seeking suspension of sentence and bail.

By impugned order dated 14.03.2024, the said application has

been dismissed. Hence, this appeal.

During the course of submission, learned counsel for the

appellant contended that no doubt the Sessions Court has

convicted the appellant and has imposed the sentences, as

referred to above; that the appellant has already undergone

nine years and seven months of actual sentence and ten years

and seven months of sentence with remission; that 50% of the

sentence has already been undergone by the appellant herein.

He has a good case on merits. The appeal before the High

Court is of the year 2020 and obviously the High Court would

give priority to older appeals. The appellant would have to

therefore wait for his appeal being heard. Since, he has

already completed 50% of the sentence, this Court may grant

the relief of suspension of sentence and bail to the appellant

herein as the appellant has a good case on merits. He further

submitted that the co-accused has been granted relief of

suspension of sentence and bail by the High Court. Hence, he

prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent(s)/State

submitted that this is not a case where the appellant ought to

be granted any relief having regard to the offences for which

he has been convicted by the Sessions Court and bearing in

mind the victim, who is aged only about 13 years and her

vulnerability having been taken advantage of by the appellant

and the co-accused, there is also no merit in the appeal filed

by the appellant before the High Court. Hence, this appeal

may be dismissed.

Shri Sanjay Hegde, learned senior counsel/Amicus

Curiae also submitted that there is no merit in this appeal

and hence the same may be dismissed.

However, he also brought to our notice the fact that in

this case the Sessions Court has not ordered for grant of

victim compensation under Section 357-A of the CrPC (Section

396 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) or under

the POCSO Act and Rules made thereunder; that in the absence

of such a direction being issued by the Sessions Court which

convicted the perpetrators, compensation would not be paid to

the victim. In this regard, learned Amicus drew our attention

to the scheme as contemplated under Section 357-A of the CrPC

and submitted that such a scheme is in vogue in every State

but hardly being implemented in its true letter and spirit;

that in the State of Maharashtra “Manodhairya Scheme” for rape

victims, children who are victims of sexual offences and acid

attack (women and children) is in operation but it is not

known whether in the instant case, the second

respondent/victim has been given any benefit under the said

Scheme. He also submitted that under Section 357-B of the

CrPC, the compensation is in addition to fine under Section

376-D of the IPC and there is also provision for treatment of

victims etc. but the same is not being implemented in its true

letter and spirit. Learned Amicus therefore, submitted that

appropriate directions may be issued not only for the purpose

of present case insofar as respondent no.2 is concerned but

this Court may enlarge the direction so as to be applicable

to all the Courts in the country particularly when the victim

is a minor or a woman.

We have considered the submissions advanced at the Bar.

We find that in the first place, the appeal is filed by the

appellant herein before the High Court, which is of the year

2020. Obviously, older appeals would be heard prior to this

appeal being considered. We also notice that the co-accused

has been released on bail by the High Court. Further, the

appellant has already completed a little more than half the

sentence imposed by the Sessions Court. There is 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.

We, therefore, direct that the appellant be produced

before the concerned Sessions Court as early as possible and

the Sessions Court shall release him on bail, subject to such

conditions as it may deem appropriate to impose.

However, it is directed that the grant of relief to the

appellant herein would not result in procrastinating the

hearing of his appeal by the High Court.

As far as the other submissions of learned Amicus Curiae

are concerned, we note that Section 357-A specifically speaks

of victim compensation scheme and under the said provision, it

is noted that direction for payment of victim compensation is

to be implemented by the District Legal Services Authority or

the State Legal Services Authority, as the case may be, and

the compensation has to be released to the victim as early as

permissible.