After 25 years, Delhi High Court directs consideration of compensation for victim employed as a child domestic worker and assaulted by former servant

The appellant, formerly employed as a domestic servant by Sushil Chandra, visited his former employer’s flat on 17 October 2000, allegedly to recover a diary containing his salary records.

Despite instructions not to admit him, the minor domestic worker Meena permitted him entry. After failing to locate the diary, the appellant allegedly assaulted Meena first with a thapi and then with a knife, causing five injuries, including multiple incised wounds to her head and neck.

Meena was taken to Safdarjung Hospital, where her statement was recorded and FIR No. 540/2000 was registered under Section 307 IPC.

The appellant was subsequently charged under Sections 307 and 452 IPC; after trial, the Trial Court convicted him under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to one year’s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000, with six months’ simple imprisonment in default.

In appeal, the appellant challenged the reliability of Meena’s testimony, the absence of motive, and the failure to establish a forensic connection between him and the knife and thapi.

1. Whether the testimony of the injured victim was sufficiently reliable to sustain the appellant’s conviction under Section 324 IPC despite alleged inconsistencies.

2. Whether the absence of an established motive rendered the prosecution case doubtful.

3. Whether the absence of fingerprints or other direct forensic evidence connecting the appellant with the knife and thapi warranted acquittal.

4. Whether, considering the appellant’s antecedents, the age of the incident, and the Probation Officer’s report, the sentence should be modified by granting probation.

5. Whether the injured victim, who had also been employed as a child domestic worker, was entitled to consideration under the Victim Compensation Scheme under Section 357-A Cr.P.C.

The Court applied Section 324 IPC concerning voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.

It held that the testimony of an injured eyewitness ordinarily carries enhanced evidentiary value because the witness’s presence at the scene is intrinsically established and the witness is unlikely to falsely implicate another person; this principle was drawn from Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259, and Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 13 SCC 365.

Minor contradictions or embellishments do not justify rejecting the entire testimony, provided the broad prosecution case remains intact.

The Court further relied on Thaman Kumar v. State of U.T. Chandigarh, (2003) 6 SCC 380, and Chandan v. State (Delhi Administration), (2024) 6 SCC 799, for the rule that proof of motive is unnecessary where trustworthy direct eyewitness evidence exists.

It also applied the principle from C. Muniappan v. State of T.N., (2010) 9 SCC 567, Ganga Singh v. State of M.P., (2013) 7 SCC 278, Sunil Kundu v. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 4 SCC 422, Surajit Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, (2013) 2 SCC 146, and Shailesh Kumar v. State of U.P., (2024) 19 SCC 570, that investigative lapses do not automatically benefit the accused unless they affect the root or substratum of the prosecution case.

For compensation, the Court applied Sections 357 and 357-A Cr.P.C., holding that courts may direct or recommend victim compensation even in respect of an offence committed before the enactment of Section 357-A where the proceedings remain pending, particularly for rehabilitation of the victim.

The Court found Meena’s testimony credible because she was the injured victim, had no apparent reason to falsely implicate the appellant, and her account was materially corroborated by the medical evidence.

The MLC recorded multiple incised wounds on the head and neck and a forehead haematoma, injuries consistent with the use of a knife and thapi as described by her.

The alleged inconsistency regarding whether Meena handed the knife to the appellant or whether he took it from a drawer was treated as minor; in any event, the appellant had not confronted her with the relevant account during cross-examination.

The absence of a clear motive was held immaterial because the direct ocular evidence was reliable and supported by medical evidence; the appellant’s frustration over an allegedly unpaid salary and his unsuccessful search for the diary provided, at most, a possible background explanation.

The lack of fingerprints did not undermine the prosecution case, since blood of Group A was found on the knife, thapi, towel, and the appellant’s shirt, providing corroborative circumstantial support when considered with the victim’s testimony and the medical record.

The Court therefore held that the investigative omission concerning fingerprints did not dislodge the prosecution’s case.

On sentence, the Court considered the appellant’s clean antecedents, socioeconomic circumstances, family responsibilities, approximately two months of custody, the appellant’s age at the time of sentencing, and the extraordinary lapse of about twenty-five years since the incident.

The Court upheld the appellant’s conviction under Section 324 IPC, holding that the victim’s evidence was reliable and sufficiently corroborated, and that neither the alleged inconsistencies, absence of motive, nor lack of fingerprint evidence created reasonable doubt.

However, the sentence was modified: the appellant was released on probation for one year upon furnishing a bond of good conduct for ₹20,000 before the Trial Court.

The fine already deposited was directed to be treated as costs of proceedings and paid to the victim as compensation.

The Court further directed that the victim be considered for suitable compensation under the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme by the Delhi State Legal Services Authority, taking into account both her injuries and her unlawful employment as a child domestic worker.

The appeal and pending applications were disposed of, subject to compliance with the probation order.