Punjab-Haryana High Court
Husna Begam vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 15 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050118
Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:050118
CWP-6513-2018 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
214 CWP-6513-2018
Date of decision: 15.04.2024
Husna Begam ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & ors. ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Present : Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Harpriya Khaneka, D.A.G., Punjab.
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
1. Prayer in the present petition is for seeking modification of the
award dated 21.09.2017 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Victim
Compensation Committee, Sangrur and for seeking enhancement of the
compensation in terms of the notification dated 15.10.2013 (Annexure P-2)
issued by the Department of Home Affairs and Justice, Government of
Punjab.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that two accused
namely Sukhwinder Singh and Jagsir Singh had committed rape with the
petitioner, for which FIR No.86, dated 05.06.2015 was registered under
Section 376/34 IPC at Police Station Sadar Dhuri, District Sangrur. Vide
judgment dated 19.02.2015, the accused persons were convicted and they
were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years
and to pay a fine of Rs.55,000/- as well and in default of payment of fine, to
further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.
3. It is contended that respondent No.1-State of Punjab had
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050118
Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:050118
notified a Victim Compensation Scheme on 15.10.2013, as per which the
petitioner is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-, however,
as against the same, only a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- has been
released. The present appeal has, thus, been filed.
4. Reply has been filed by the respondents, where it has been
averred that under Sections 4 and 5 of the Victim Compensation Scheme,
the eligibility criteria and procedure for grant of compensation to the victim
or his dependents has been prescribed. Upon the consideration of facts of
instant case in terms of the eligibility criteria and the procedure for grant of
compensation, the Committee awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as
compensation to the petitioner. Additionally a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards
compensation was also awarded by the trial Court in favour of the
petitioner, hence, the petitioner receives a total compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/-. The State has already released its share of compensation to
the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and that remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is to
be released by the accused, who have already preferred an appeal before this
Court against their conviction.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the documents.
6. The victim is entitled to a maximum compensation of
Rs.3,00,000/- as per the Victim compensation Scheme notified by the State
of Punjab on 15.10.2013. Even though the maximum compensation to
which a victim is entitled to Rs.3,00,000/-, however, there is no mention in
the impugned order as to why and under what circumstances, a meager
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- was assessed to be just and sufficient.
7. It is also noticed by this Court that the compensation awarded
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050118
Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:050118
by the trial Court has also not been released in favour of the petitioner so
far.
8. I find that the impugned award dated 21.09.2017 is non-
speaking as a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- has been provided for a victim
of rape. This is a case of gang rape and as such, there were aggravating
circumstances in which a compensation on a higher side ought to have been
awarded by the Committee. It is also noticed that the compensation
awarded is of Rs.1,00,000/- after noticing that the same was to be paid by
the accused, the said amount has not been released and thus, the appellant
has been given the benefit only to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-.
9. While allowing the present petition, it is directed that the
petitioner is entitled to a total compensation Rs.3,00,000/- being a victim of
gang rape at a young age of nearly 18 years and she has suffered lot of
physical harassment and mental trauma also during cross examination. The
compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- so awarded would exclude the compensation
ordered by the trial Court to be paid to the petitioner, to the extent of
Rs.1,00,000/-. However, the benefit of such compensation cannot be kept
contingent to the accused depositing the same and to release only after as
and when such deposit is made. Such an aspect would defeat the object of
awarding such compensation as recovery of such rehabilitatory
compensation from the violator would add agony to the ordeal and leave the
victim to fend for herself in seeking recovery of compensation for her lost
honour.
10. Respondent No.3-District Legal Services Authority, Sangrur is,
thus, directed to release the total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the
petitioner. Since Clause 6 of the said Scheme entitles recovery of
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050118
Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:050118
compensation awarded to the victim or his dependent from the person
responsible for causing loss or injury as a result of the crime committed by
him, hence I am of the view that the compensation imposed upon the
accused is also required to be discharged by the authority and it may later
take recourse under provisions of Clause 6 of the Victim Compensation
Scheme dated 08.12.2011 for seeking recovery of said compensation from
the accused.
11. An appropriate affidavit in this regard shall also be furnished
by the petitioner to the effect that in the event of a total compensation of
Rs.3,00,000/- being disbursed by the District Legal Services Authority,
Sangrur, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- or above payable by the accused as
compensation to the petitioner may be released in favour of the respondents,
the District Legal Services Authority and that the petitioner have no
objection to the same and she shall not place any claim to the same.
12. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed.
15.04.2024 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
monika JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
