The Supreme Court recently ordered that in cases involving bodily harm, especially in cases of sexual assault involving minors or women, the Session Courts must order compensation to the victims under Section 357-A of the CrPC (396 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).

The Court observed that the absence of a compensation order by the Sessions Court delays benefits to the victims. This direction should be swiftly implemented by legal services authorities, with provisions for interim compensation where appropriate, the Court held.

“We direct that a Sessions Court, trying a case relating to bodily injury like sexual assault etc., particularly on minor children and women, direct that compensation be paid to the victims keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis in the tests. in the file, while the sentence is handed down convicting or acquitting the accused. Secondly, the said directive should be implemented by the District Legal Services Authority or the State Legal Services Authority, as the case may be, in letter and spirit and in the most expeditious manner and to ensure that the victim receives compensation. as soon as possible.”, held the Court.

a bank of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Pankaj Mithal passed this direction while granting bail to the appellant, convicted under Sections 376-D, 354 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act.

The appellant had challenged the dismissal by the Bombay High Court on March 14, 2024 of his application for suspension of sentence and bail under Section 389 of the CrPC. The appellant was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment and a fine of Rs 10,000 under the IPC and ten years imprisonment under the POCSO Act with a fine of Rs 2,500.

The appellant’s lawyer, Karl Rustomkhan, argued that he had already served nine years and seven months of his sentence, exceeding 50 percent of his sentence. He submitted that the appellant had a strong case on merits and cited that the High Court had granted bail to the co-accused. Given the High Court’s priority for older cases, he argued that the appeal would suffer delays and requested a suspended sentence and bail.

State lawyer Prastut Mahesh Dalvi opposed the appellant’s release, highlighting the seriousness of the crimes and the young age of the victim, approximately 13 years old. Further, Amicus Curiae Senior Counsel Sanjay Hegde along with Advocate on Record Mukund P. Unny argued that the appeal was without merit and should be dismissed.

Hegde also expressed concern over compensation to victims. He noted that the Sessions Court had not ordered compensation to the victims under Section 357-A of the CrPC or the POCSO Act. Drawing attention to the existing “Manodhairya Scheme” in Maharashtra, which provides support to victims of sexual crimes and acid attacks, he emphasized the need for effective implementation of compensation schemes. He urged the Court to issue directions for enforcement, suggesting that such injunctions should be extended to all similar cases, particularly those involving minors or women.

The Court granted bail to the appellant, noting that he had served more than half of his sentence and that the High Court was not likely to increase it. The Court ordered the appellant’s release on bail, subject to the conditions laid down by the Sessions Court, and clarified that this relief should not delay the appeal proceedings.

The Court directed that a copy of this order be distributed to all High Courts to ensure that the Chief District Judges convey it to the Session Judges, who are expected to demand compensation from victims as required. Further, in the present case, the Court recommended that the High Court consider granting interim compensation to the victim under Rule 7 of the POCSO Rules, 2012 and Rule 9 of the POCSO Rules, 2020.

The Court recorded its appreciation for the assistance provided by Hegde and Unny in addressing the victims’ compensation issues. With these observations, the Supreme Court upheld and resolved the appeal.

Case no. – Petition for Special License (Crl.) No. 13890/2024

Title of the case – Saibaj Noormohammad v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 860