Rajasthan High Court: In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., opined that the provisions contained under Section 357-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) and the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011 (‘2011 Scheme’), were applicable to the incidents occurred prior to their enactment and the minor victim in the present case was entitled to the compensation in terms of 2011 Scheme. The Court opined that the crime of rape committed with the minor victim was a dehumanizing one and an affront to the human dignity. Hence, compensation should be awarded as a solace to the victim. Thus, the Court directed the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 to the victim after adjusting the amount of compensation already recieved by her.
Background
On 19-07-2004, Responder 4 committed a rape of the petitioner’s two-year old daughter (‘minor victim’). Accordingly, the FIR was registered for the offences under Section 365 and 376 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). Thereafter, the respondent was tried by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track)-1, Jaipur , wherein, vide judgment dated 31-05-2005, he was found guilty and was convicted under Section 365 and 376 of the IPC. Respondent 4 was sentenced to undergo ten years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500 for each offence, but no compensation was given to the minor victim.
After the judgment, the petitioner submitted an application to the District Collector, Jaipur for grant of compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 to the minor victim, but the said application remained undecided for want of any such provision in law,
Thereafter, on the basis of the 154th Law Commission Report, Section 357-A was added in the CrPC, which provided compensation even in the case of acquittal of the accused. Under Section 357-A of the CrPC, all States in coordination with the Central Government, were required to formulate a Victim Compensation Scheme for the State, and the discretion was left upon the State and District Legal Services Authority (‘DLSA’) to decide the quantum of the punishment. Thus, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 357-A of the CrPC, the Rajasthan Government framed the 2011 Scheme. As per 2011 Scheme, a minor rape victim was entitled to a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000, but in the present case, the minor victim received Rs. 10,000 only.
Thus, the petitioner filed the present petition before the Court.
The question which arose before the Court was,whether the minor victim was entitled to get the benefit of the Victim Compensation Scheme under Section 357-A of the CrPC and whether the provisions contained in the 2011 Scheme were applicable with its retrospective effect or prospective effect.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court referred to Malimath Committee Report and also, relied on Chairman Railway Board v. Chandrim Das, (2000) 2 SCC 465; Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh, (1988) 4 SCC 551 and opined that it was clear that the concept of grant of compensation to the victims was not a new concept and it was recognized by the Courts, and that was why the Courts had been granted compensation to several rape victims in exercise of its inherent powers. Thereafter, new provision of grant of Victim Compensation Scheme was brought into the picture by introducing Section 357-A of the CrPC, but the amended provision nowhere mentioned that the benefits of this Section were prospective or retrospective in nature.
The Court opined that there was no second opinion that the procedural beneficial statutes were generally retrospective in nature and the statutes which were substantive were prospective in their application, unless any express stipulation was made thereunder. The Court relied on District Collector v. DLSA, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 8292 and Achiya Bibi v. State of West Bengal, 2019 SCC OnLine Cal 1950, and opined that it would be safe to hold that the amended provisions contained under Section 357-A of CrPC and 2011 Scheme were applicable to the incidents occured prior to their enactment. Thus, the Court opined that the minor victim was entitled to get compensation in terms of 2011 Scheme.
The Court opined that the crime of rape committed with the minor victim was a dehumanizing one and an affront to the human dignity. Hence, the compensation should be awarded as a solace to the victim. Thus, the Court directed the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 to the victim after adjusting the amount of compensation already recieved by her.
The Court also directed the respondents, the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority (‘RLSA’) and the DLSA, Jaipur to make compliance of the present order as per the provisions contained under 2011 Scheme and the guidelines issued by the RLSA within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the present order. The Court stated that the minor victims of rape were entitled to get compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 with whom the incident occured prior to 2009 and issued a general mandamus in favour of all minor victims of rape with whom rape was committed prior to 2009 for award of compensation, however, the general mandamus would be applicable only in those cases where the applications were submitted prior to amendment of Section 357-A of the CrPC.
The Court directed the Chief Secretary of the Government of Rajasthan and the Member Secretary, RLSA to look into the matter and do the needful at the earliest for disbursement of amount of compensation without any further delay to such minor victims of rape. The Court stated that the present order would not provide a new cause of action to any applicant and it would apply to the cases, which were either pending before the competent authority and to the cases where litigation with regard to claim of victim compensation was pending on the date of the present order. Thus, the Court directed the Registry to send a copy of the present order to the respondents, Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Member Secretary RLSA and Secretary DLSA, Jaipur for necessary action and compliance.
[G.K. v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 64, Order dated 03-01-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Naina Saraf, Advocate
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
