After 16-Year-Old POCSO Survivor Became Pregnant And Underwent Abortion, Karnataka HC Raises Recommended Compensation To ₹7 Lakh

The appellant, mother of the victim, challenged the Special Court’s recommendation that the District Legal Services Authority, Bidar (DLSA) pay the victim ₹1,00,000 under the Victims Compensation Scheme.

The victim, aged about 16 at the time, was sexually assaulted; the accused was convicted under Section 376(2)(i)(n) IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

The victim became pregnant, and DNA testing identified the accused as the biological father of the fetus.

She later underwent an abortion on the advice of a Medical Board.

Separately, the Special Court directed that ₹20,000 of the fine be paid to her under Section 357(1)(b) CrPC.

The appellant sought enhanced compensation of ₹4,00,000 to ₹7,00,000.

Section 33(8) of the POCSO Act and Rule 7(2) of the POCSO Rules, 2012, provide for compensation to a child victim in accordance with the applicable victims’ compensation scheme.

The Court considered the NALSA Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, 2018, including its ₹4,00,000–₹7,00,000 range for unnatural sexual assault and factors such as the gravity of the offence, severity of harm, treatment expenses, and educational or employment loss.

It also referred to the Karnataka High Court’s decision in Smt. Lalita v. State of Karnataka, which discussed the Scheme and the assessment of compensation under Rule 9(3), and to Nipun Saxena v. Union of India and the Delhi High Court decision in “X” v. State of NCT Delhi as authorities considered in that context.

Section 357(1)(b) CrPC concerns payment of fine to the victim and was treated separately from compensation under the Scheme.

The Court found that the victim’s age, the aggravated sexual assault, the resulting pregnancy, and the abortion demonstrated substantial physical and mental harm.

Applying the Scheme’s listed factors, it held that ₹1,00,000 was inadequate and that ₹7,00,000—the upper end of the applicable range—was just and reasonable.

Although it noted that Lalita involved materially different facts, the Court considered its treatment of compensation under the POCSO framework relevant; it did not apply that case’s additional 50% enhancement to this victim.

The compensation payable under the Victims Compensation Scheme was enhanced from ₹1,00,000 to ₹7,00,000, and the DLSA, Bidar, was recommended to pay that amount to the victim.

As she had attained majority, the entire compensation was directed to be paid to her.