Sessions courts must order compensation for victims in cases of sexual crimes against minors and women: Supreme Court

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

The Court noted that the absence of an order for compensation by the Sessions Court delays the distribution of benefits to the victims. This direction should be implemented promptly by the legal services authorities, with provisions for interim compensation if necessary, the Court said.

“we direct that a Sessions Court, adjudicating a case relating to bodily harm such as assault etc., particularly on minor children and women, shall order that victim compensation be paid taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of the evidence as the verdict is delivered, convicting or acquitting the suspect. Secondly, the said direction by the District Legal Services Authority or the State Legal Services Authority, as the case may be, must be carried out in letter and spirit and in the most expeditious manner and to ensure that the victim receives compensation at the earliest receives.”, the Court ruled.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Pankaj Mithal has taken 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 Offenses (POCSO) Act.

The appellant had challenged the rejection by the Bombay High Court on March 14, 2024, of his application for suspension of sentence and bail under Section 389 of the CrPC. The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty years and fine of Rs.10,000 under IPC and imprisonment for ten years under POCSO Act with fine of Rs.2,500.

The appellant’s lawyer Karl Rustomkhan argued that he had already served nine years and seven months of his sentence, more than 50 percent of his sentence. He submitted that the appellant had a strong case on merits and cited that the co-accused had been granted bail by the High Court. Considering the Supreme Court’s priority for older cases, he argued that the appeal would be delayed and sought suspension of sentence and bail.

Defense counsel Prastut Mahesh Dalvi opposed the appellant’s release, emphasizing the seriousness of the crimes and the young age of the victim, about 13 years. Moreover, Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, along with Advocate-on-Record Mukund P. Unny, argued that the appeal was without merit and should be dismissed.

Hegde also expressed concern about compensation for victims. He pointed out that the Sessions Court had not ordered compensation for victims under Section 357-A of the CrPC or the POCSO Act. He drew attention to the existing “Manodhairya Scheme” in Maharashtra, which provides support to victims of sexual crimes and acid attacks, and stressed 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, especially those involving minors or women.

The Court granted bail to the appellant, noting that he had served more than half of his sentence and that the sentence was not likely to be increased by the High Court. The Court ordered the release of the appellant on bail subject to the conditions set by the Sessions Court and clarified that this provision should not delay the appeal proceedings.

The Court directed that a copy of this order be circulated to all High Courts to ensure that the Chief District Judges transmit it to the Session Judges, who are expected to order compensation to victims if necessary. Further, in the present case, the Court recommended that the High Court consider awarding interim compensation to the victim under Rule 7 of the POCSO Rules, 2012, and Rule 9 of the POCSO Rules, 2020.

The court expressed its appreciation for the assistance provided by Hegde and Unny in addressing victims’ compensation issues. With these comments, the Supreme Court allowed and dismissed 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