01Facts
The appellant, the victim’s grandmother, challenged the Special Judge’s recommendation that the District Legal Services Authority, Bidar (DLSA) pay ₹1,00,000 as compensation under the Victims Compensation Scheme.
pp. 2–6The victim was ten years old when she was kidnapped and subjected to an unnatural sexual assault; her parents died after the incident.
pp. 2–6The Special Judge convicted the accused of offences under the IPC and the POCSO Act and separately directed that ₹80,000 from the fine be paid to the victim’s mother as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) CrPC.
pp. 3, 5–6The appeal sought enhancement of the scheme compensation, relying on the applicable range of ₹4,00,000 to ₹7,00,000 for unnatural sexual assault.
pp. 2–6, 8, 1102Issues
i.1. Whether the recommendation of ₹1,00,000 as compensation under the Victims Compensation Scheme was inadequate in the circumstances of the case.
pp. 5–8, 10–11ii.2. Whether the victim was entitled to enhanced compensation under the Scheme and, if so, what amount should be recommended for payment by the DLSA.
pp. 6–1103Law Applied
Section 33(8) of the POCSO Act, read with Rule 7(2) of the POCSO Rules, 2012, provides for compensation to a child victim in accordance with the applicable victim compensation scheme.
p. 6The Court considered the NALSA Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, 2018, which provides compensation of ₹4,00,000 to ₹7,00,000 for unnatural sexual assault and identifies factors including the gravity of the offence, the severity of physical or mental harm, and relevant treatment or other expenses.
pp. 6–8The Court also referred to Smt. Lalita v. State of Karnataka, which discussed compensation under the Scheme and the assessment factors in Rule 9(3) of the 2020 Rules, while noting that its facts were not similar.
pp. 8–10Section 357(1)(b) CrPC was the basis for the separate direction concerning the fine; it was distinct from compensation under the Scheme.
pp. 3, 5–6Provisions in the judgment · 10 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 413
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 366Section 323Section 506Section 363Section 377
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 6Section 12Section 33
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 357
04Reasoning
The Court considered the victim’s age, the kidnapping, the unnatural sexual assault, and the threat to kill her if she disclosed the incident.
pp. 8–11In light of the resulting seriousness of the harm and the Scheme’s compensation factors and prescribed range, it found ₹1,00,000 inadequate and held ₹6,00,000 to be just and reasonable.
pp. 8–11Although the appellant sought the maximum amount of ₹7,00,000, the Court fixed compensation at ₹6,00,000, without adopting the higher award made on the materially different facts in Lalita.
pp. 8–1105Holding
The appeal was allowed.
pp. 11–12The Court enhanced the compensation recommended under the Victims Compensation Scheme from ₹1,00,000 to ₹6,00,000 and recommended that the DLSA, Bidar pay that amount to the victim.
pp. 11–12If she had attained majority, the entire amount was payable to her; otherwise, it was to be placed in a fixed deposit in her name until she attained majority.
pp. 11–12Original Court PDF
SHARANAMMAvsTHE MEMBER SECRETARY
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
