The Delhi High Court on Thursday comprising of a bench of Justice Anup J Bhambhani stating that there is little else that can be done apart from prosecuting the offender and that it can't undo the offence, awarded Rs 6 lakh as interim compensation to a minor victim of sexual assault. (Mst X v. State).
The Bench directed Delhi State Legal Services Authority to disburse the amount, saying,
"Since the system cannot turn the clock back nor ‘undo’ the offence, there is little else the court can do other than prosecute the offender and provide to the victim whatever psychological security and sense of empowerment that monetary compensation can give."
While doing so, the Court set aside the trial court order which had awarded Rs 50,000 as interim compensation to the victim.
Facts of the Case
The Petitioner is the victim and had been subjected to sexual assault, abuse, and sodomy by his uncle in the victim’s own house. The prosecution of the accused is underway and is presently at the stage of prosecution evidence. The learned Sessions Court had awarded to the petitioner, who was the victim of the offense, interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. The petition had been filed against the same order for the reason of it being flawed with respect to the quantum of interim compensation.
Contention of the Parties
The counsel for the Petitioners contended that the learned ASJ had failed to appreciate that interim compensation is to be granted to a minor victim of sexual abuse, to enable the victim and his family to overcome the incident and to compensate for the damaging effect on the victim’s psyche and to help rehabilitate the victim into society; for ‘relief’ and ‘rehabilitation’; and not merely to cover for the expenses to be incurred for the time being.
The Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) appeared on behalf of the State submitted that though the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme is funded by the Government of NCT of Delhi, the scheme is administered by the Delhi State Legal Services Authority and that therefore it is necessary to implead DSLSA as a party-respondent to the present proceedings.
Courts Observation & Judgment
The Court in view of the submissions made before it, stated that if a victim applied for compensation to DSLSA, the concerned authority was required to assess and pay compensation in accordance with the DVC Scheme 2018.
The Court held, “However, if a victim applied for compensation under Section 33(8) POCSO Act before the special POCSO court, the DVC Scheme 2018 was not binding but served merely as a ‘guideline’ for the court to assess and pay compensation.”
The Court further added that Rule 9 of POCSO Rules, 2020 empowered a court to not only award interim compensation in appropriate cases on its own, but also to recommend the award of compensation in certain cases.
"Even a recommendation made by a court would be binding on the legal service authority and compensation would decidedly be payable, except the quantum payable would be left to computed by the authority. A direction to pay a quantified amount as compensation would obviously be binding with no discretion left with the legal service authority," the Court explained.
In view of the above, the Court held that in the present case, the trial court was not bound by the DVC Scheme 2018 and the same would, at best, serve as ‘guidelines’ for assessment of compensation payable.
The Court considered the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the stand of the Child Welfare Committee, the victim's ongoing physiological counselling, the economic status of the family, etc and opined that the sum of Rs. 50,000 awarded as interim compensation was low.
Considering that the six-year-old child had suffered extreme psychological trauma, mental agony and post-traumatic stress, the Court observed that the compensation, even at the interim stage, should compensate to the extent possible, for atonement of the crime. The order states,
"...while attempting to quantify the compensation payable to the petitioner even at the interim stage, the effort of this court should be to offer monetary recompense, to the extent possible, for atonement of the crime to which the petitioner was subject; the physical and mental trauma suffered by him; and the emotional scar left on his psyche."
The Court stated that apart from ensuring that actual expenses incurred for the victim’s psychological counselling and treatment are met, it was also necessary that money was put in the hands of the family so that they are able to cater to his educational needs and his safe transport to school.
The mother would also need to spend more time with him to give him emotional security since he was assaulted by a relative in his own home, by reason of which she may not be able to go to work, the Court added.
The Court considering the above discussion ordered,
".. order dated 19.08.2020 made by the learned ASJ in case CIS SC No. 66/2020 arising from F.I.R. No. 645/2019 registered at P.S.: Mehrauli, is set-aside; and the Delhi State Legal Services Authority is directed to disburse and pay to the petitioner interim compensation in the sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rs. Six Lacs Only), forthwith and in any event within 04 weeks of receipt of this order."
The interim compensation awarded shall be subject to adjustment against the final compensation awarded by the trial court upon conclusion of the trial, the Court clarified.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
