The Supreme Court on Monday directed all trial courts to order victim compensation to women and minor children in cases of sexual assault and other such cases involving bodily injuries, while passing judgments [Saibaj Noormohammad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.].
A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Pankaj Mithal passed the direction while hearing a bail plea filed by a man convicted for rape and assault under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).
"In the circumstances, we direct that a Sessions Court, which adjudicates a case concerning the bodily injuries such as sexual assault etc. particularly on minor children and women shall order for victim compensation to be paid having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and based on the evidence on record, while passing the judgment either convicting or acquitting the accused", the Court said in its November 4 order.
Further, the Court directed the District/State Legal Services Authorities to swiftly implement its direction to ensure that victims in such cases are paid compensation in the quickest manner.
The appellant Saibaj Noormohammad Shaikh was convicted under Sections 376D (Rape) and 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment with a fine of ₹10,000.
As regards, Saibaj's conviction under the POCSO Act, he was given a 10-year rigorous imprisonment and fined ₹2,500, with an additional one month of imprisonment in case of default.
The Court found that the trial court while convicting Saibaj had not passed any direction for the payment of compensation to the minor victim in the case.
"Such a lapse on the part of Sessions Court would only delay payment of any compensation under Section 357A of the CrPC," the top court said.
Thus, it directed all trial courts to order compensation for victims in such cases while passing the judgments either convicting or acquitting the accused.
Additionally, it suggested:
"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 also directed its registry to circulate the order to the Registrar Generals of all High Courts and requested them to further forward its order to all District and Sessions Court judges, who are under an obligation to order victim compensation in appropriate cases.
As regards Siabaj's bail plea, the Court after noting that he had already completed a little more than half of his sentence and that a co-accused in the case had been released on bail by the High Court, found that he was entitled to be released on bail.
"We, therefore, direct that the appellant be produced before the concerned Sessions Court as early as possible and the Sessions Court shall release him on bail, subject to such conditions as it may deem appropriate to impose," it noted in its order.
Advocates Karl Rustomkhan appeared for Saibaj Noormohammad Shaikh.
Advocate Prastut Mahesh Dalvi represented the State of Maharashtra.
Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde appeared as Amicus Curiae.
Advocate Mukund P Unny represented the victim.
[Read Order]