Sessions courts must order compensation for sexual assault victims in judgments: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has ordered the sessions courts dealing with cases involving sexual assault of women and minor children, to issue direction for victim compensation in their judgments.

Such directions of victim compensation would be implemented by the District or State Legal Services Authority in letter and spirit and in the quickest manner and at the earliest, it said.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Pankaj Mithal felt there can also be a direction for payment of interim compensation which could be made by the Sessions Court depending upon the facts of each case.

The court's direction came while hearing a plea against rejection of suspension of sentence by Saibaj Noormohammad Shaikh against the Bombay High Court.

Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing as amicus curiae, submitted a scheme is there in every state for the victim compensation but it is hardly being implemented in its true letter and spirit.

He said that in Maharashtra, "Manodhairya Scheme” for rape victims, victims of sexual offences and acid attack (women and children) is in operation but it is not known whether in the instant case, the victim has been given any benefit under the said Scheme.

He pointed out under Section 357-B of the CrPC, the compensation is in addition to the fine under Section 376-D of the IPC and there is also provision for treatment of victims etc, but the same is not being implemented in its true letter and spirit.

He requested the court to issue directions to be applicable to all the courts in the country particularly when the victim is a minor or a woman.

After hearing the counsel, the bench also said that Section 357-A of the CrPC (Section 396 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) specifically speaks of victim compensation scheme.

The bench noted the Trial Court in the case issued no direction for payment of victim compensation after convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 376-D of the IPC and imposing the fine of Rs 12,500.

"Such a lapse on the part of Sessions Court would only delay payment of any compensation under Section 357-A of the CrPC," the bench said.

After issuing orders to trial courts for implementing the provision in letter and spirit, the bench directed that a copy of this order be circulated by the Registry of this court to all the High Courts which should transmit the said order to all the Principal District Judges in all the Districts of the respective States and for onward transmission to the Sessions Judges dealing with such matters.

The court emphasised the trial courts are under an obligation to order for victim compensation in an appropriate case.

In the case, the 13-year-old victim would also be entitled to be considered for compensation under Rule 7 of the POCSO Rules, 2012 and now under Rule 9 of the POCSO Rules, 2020, the bench said.

Since the Sessions Judge has not awarded any compensation in the case, the bench asked the High Court to consider the issue in an interim manner, at the earliest.

The court also found that the appellant is entitled to suspension of sentence and release on bail during the pendency of appeal before the High Court as he has completed more than 50 per cent of the 20 years jail term.