Delhi High Court: In a petition filed to seek setting aside of the order dated 15-03-2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’), South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi by which the Special Court awarded a final compensation of Rs. 10,000/- in an application filed by the petitioner under Section 33(8) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’) and Rule 9 of the POCSO Rules, 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. opined that the maximum compensation for ‘unnatural sexual assault’ is to be treated as minimum compensation for the offence of ‘aggravated sexual assault’ in the present case and directed the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (‘DSLSA’) to pay the enhanced compensation of Rs. 10.5 lakhs to the petitioner.
Background
In the present matter, the petitioner submitted that the impugned order had been passed mechanically and without any application of mind and failed to provide any reasoning for coming to the figure of Rs. 10,000/-. It was also submitted that the interim compensation amounting to Rs. 75,000/- awarded by the Special Court vide order dated 12-02-2020 and the total sum of Rs. 85,000/- received by the petitioner was sorely inadequate and incommensurate with the trauma undergone by the petitioner.
It was also contended that the Special Court failed to consider the Victim Impact Assessment of the petitioner which would show that the petitioner was physically and sexually abused by her father for years and as a result of the trauma and financial distress, she was unable to even attend school in 2018-19.
It was further submitted that the mother of the petitioner was the sole breadwinner who was earning only Rs. 7000/- per month in which she had to sustain herself, the petitioner, and her younger child.
The petitioner contended that this matter ought to have been treated at par with that of a victim of ‘Unnatural Sexual Assault’ for which the range of compensation has been prescribed between Rs. 4-7 lakhs.
The Delhi State Legal Services Authority (‘DSLSA’) submitted that they, along with their subsidiary District Legal Service Authorities (‘DSLA’), had no independent power to award compensation in POCSO cases and that the Special Court had the sole prerogative to award compensation as per Section 33(8) of the POCSO Act.
It was contended by the State that the petitioner was verified to be 17 years and 2 months old at the time of the incident and that after the First Information Report (‘FIR’) came to be registered by the petitioner, the accused father was arrested. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed and charges were framed under Sections 354/354A/308/509 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’)1 and Section 10 of the POCSO Act.
It was further submitted that the accused father committed suicide at his house on 20-03-2021 after which the proceedings were abated against him by the Special Court vide order dated 04-09-2021 and that the Victim Impact Assessment Report was submitted to the Special Court on 12-02-2020.
Analysis and Decision
The Court said that compensation to the victim is an essential part of curing justice and that it not only provides monetary relief but is also an act that seeks to make a person whole again so that the victim can take steps for rehabilitation and start afresh.
The Court stated that the Compensation Scheme for Woman Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes — 2018 of National Legal Services Authority (‘NALSA’) came into existence pursuant to Supreme court’s decision in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2019) 13 SCC 719. It was also noted that DSLSA incorporated the compensation scheme in Part II of the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018 and that the schedule in Part II of the DSLSA Scheme was pari materia to the schedule in the NALSA scheme which defined the minimum and upper limit of compensation to be paid in case of various offences.
Thus, the Court stated that the Special Court, while deciding on the quantum of compensation to be paid to the victim, has to consider these schemes as a guideline.
The Court noted that the petitioner had undergone severe mental trauma and had been subjected to aggravated sexual assault at the hands of her father and that her mother earned only Rs. 7000/- per month which was insufficient to raise a family of three. It was further noted that the petitioner had to leave her schooling in between for a year because of mental trauma and financial distress.
It was said that to ensure that the petitioner could pursue higher education and take steps towards improving her well-being, a larger sum of compensation was required to be paid. Thus, the Court stated that considering the factors enumerated in Rule 9(3) of the POCSO Rules, 2020, sufficient ground had been made to enhance the compensation awarded by the Special Judge.
Further, it was said that although aggravated sexual assault was not explicitly mentioned in the Scheme, the Court would refer to ‘unnatural sexual assault’, a similar offence, for determining the quantum of compensation.
The Court considered the circumstances in the present matter as well as the fact that POCSO is a beneficial legislation aimed to ameliorate the suffering of child victims of sexual abuse and opined that the maximum compensation was to be treated as the minimum compensation which could be given.
Since the petitioner was a ‘minor’, the minimum and maximum limits of compensation would be deemed to be 50 percent higher than those mentioned in the Schedule as per Clause 9 (Part-II) of the DVC Scheme, 2018 and in the present matter the maximum limit would stand enhanced from Rs. 6 lakhs to Rs. 10.5 lakhs respectively.
The Court, while disposing of the petition, determined the final compensation payable to the petitioner to be Rs. 10.5 lakhs and directed DSLSA to disburse and pay further compensation amounting to Rs. 9,65,000/- to the petitioner within four weeks since Rs. 85,000/- had already been paid.
[X v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6484, Decided on 05-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner — Advocate Rohit Bhardwaj, Advocate Shiv Nath Sawhney
For Respondent — APP Laksh Khanna, Dr. Amit George, Advocate Arkaneil Bhaumik
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Section 74/75/110/79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023