The Supreme Court has recently directed that in cases involving personal injury, particularly in cases of sexual assault involving minors or women, the courts should award compensation to the victims under Section 357-A of the CrPC(396 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).

The Court observed that the absence of a compensation order from the Sessions Court was delaying benefits to the victims. This direction must be swiftly implemented by legal authorities, with provisions for interim relief where appropriate, the Court held.

“we order that a Sessions Court, hearing a case relating to bodily injury such as sexual assault etc., particularly to children and minor women, shall order compensation to the victims, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of the evidence . in the file, during the pronouncement of the judgment either of conviction or acquittal of the accused. Secondly, the said direction must be implemented by the District Legal Services Authority or the State Legal Services Authority, as the case may be, in letter and spirit and in the most expeditious manner and to ensure that compensation is paid to the victim as soon as possible.“, the Court held.

A bank 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 Offenses Act (POCSO).

The appellant had challenged the Bombay High Court’s March 14, 2024 rejection of his application for suspension of sentence and bail under Section 389 of the CrPC. The appellant was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment and fined Rs.10,000. under the IPC and ten years imprisonment under the POCSO Act with a 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, exceeding 50 percent of his term. He submitted that the appellant had a serious case on merits and pleaded 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 be delayed and asked for a suspended sentence and bail.

Advocate Prastut Mahesh Dalvi for the state opposed the appellant’s release, pointing out the seriousness of the offenses and the victim’s young age of around 13 years. Further, Senior Advocate Amicus Curiae Sanjay Hegde along with Registered Advocate Mukund P. Unny submitted that the appeal has no merit and should be dismissed.

Hegde also expressed concern over compensation to the victims. He pointed out that the Sessions Court did not order compensation to the victim under Section 357-A of the CrPC or the POCSO Act. Drawing attention to the existing ‘Manodhairya Scheme’ in Maharashtra, which provides support to victims of sex crimes and acid attacks, he stressed the need for effective implementation of compensation schemes. He asked the Court to issue enforcement orders, suggesting that such orders should be extended to all similar cases, particularly those involving minors or women.

The Court granted bail to the appellant noting that he had served more than half of the sentence and that there was no likelihood of the sentence being enhanced by the High Court. The court ordered the release of the appellant on bail, under the conditions established by the Sessions Court, and clarified that this measure must not delay the appeal procedure.

The court directed that a copy of this order be circulated to all High Courts to ensure that the Chief District Judges forward it to the Sessions Judges who are expected to order compensation to the victims as required. Further, in the present case, the Court recommended the High Court to consider awarding provisional 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 rendered by Hegde and Unny in dealing with the issues of compensation to the victims. With these observations, the Supreme Court admitted and resolved the appeal.

Case no. – Petition for special leave (Crl.) no. 13890/2024

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

Reference: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 860