Incestuous Sexual Violence By Parent Distinct Category Of Offence Mandating Compensation To Victim Children: Madras High Court
The Court held that where victim children suffer incestuous aggravated penetrative sexual assault at the hands of persons entrusted with their protection, compensation under the POCSO framework becomes imperative, particularly in cases involving prolonged trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder.
The Madras High Court has held that incestuous sexual violence committed by a parent constitutes a distinct category of offence warranting the grant of compensation to the victim children under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
The Court was hearing a criminal appeal filed by the guardian of three victim children, challenging a judgment of the Special POCSO Court, only to the limited extent that it failed to award adequate compensation to the children despite recording findings regarding prolonged aggravated penetrative sexual assault and severe post-traumatic stress disorder suffered by them.
A Bench of Justice A. D. Jagadish Chandira observed: “Incestuous sexual violence committed by a parent is a distinct category of offence and thus, is an exceptional circumstance that mandates the grant of compensation to the victim children.”
Advocate Deepika Murali appeared for the appellant. Government Advocate (Criminal Side) J.R. Archana appeared for the State.
Background
The appeal arose from a judgment passed by the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the POCSO Act, which had convicted the accused persons for offences under the POCSO Act and imposed substantive sentences and fines.
The Trial Court had noted that interim compensation of ₹25,000 each had already been awarded to the victim children during the pendency of proceedings and therefore refrained from granting any additional compensation, while directing that the fine amount be proportionately disbursed to the children.
The appeal before the High Court was confined solely to the issue of non-award of adequate compensation.
Court’s Observation
The High Court noted that the Trial Court itself had recorded extensive findings regarding the severe post-traumatic stress disorder suffered by the victim children and the long-term psychological consequences flowing from the offences.
The Bench observed: “From the impugned judgment, this Court finds that the Trial Court has done a threadbare appreciation of the overwhelming evidence in respect of the post-traumatic stress disorder suffered by the victim children. The impugned judgment even goes on to find that persons who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder tend to have recurrent flashbacks of the events causing such disorder and are therewith often preoccupied by their recollection of such events which, in turn, render it difficult for them to have healthy relationships and lead a normal life. When such are the findings of the Trial Court, the Trial Court ought to have taken them into consideration and ensured that the victim children received adequate compensation for their past and future sufferings arising out of the offence.”
The Court further held that the likely expenditure towards therapy, treatment, counselling and rehabilitation necessarily had to be considered while determining compensation.
The Bench further relied upon the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhanei Prasad @ Raju v. State of H.P. (2025) and reproduced the following observations: “When a father who is expected to be a shield, a guardian, a moral compass, becomes the source of the most severe violation of a child's bodily integrity and dignity, the betrayal is not only personal but institutional. The law does not, and cannot, condone such acts under the guise of rehabilitation or reform.”
The High Court referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2019) and Saibaj Noormohammad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2024).
The Court reiterated that Special Courts under the POCSO Act are obligated to consider the grant of compensation in all appropriate cases and cannot mechanically decline compensation without recording adequate reasons.
The Court reproduced the observations in Saibaj Noormohammad Shaikh: “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.”
The Bench held that the Trial Court erred in treating interim compensation and possible disbursal of the fine amount as sufficient rehabilitation for the victim children.
The High Court gave significant weight to the fact that the offences had been committed by persons who were expected to provide protection and care to the victim children.
The Court observed: “The victim children had suffered aggravated penetrative sexual assault from none other than their very own father and paternal uncle, both of whom were entrusted with the primary responsibility of protecting them from perpetrators.”
The Bench held that such offences stand on a distinct footing because they destroy foundational familial trust and therefore justify enhanced judicial sensitivity while considering compensation and rehabilitation.
The Court examined Rule 9 of the POCSO Rules, 2020 and the Tamil Nadu Child Victim Compensation Fund Government Orders to determine the appropriate quantum of compensation.
The High Court observed that the Government Orders prescribed a minimum compensation of ₹5 lakh and a maximum compensation of ₹10 lakh in cases involving aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
The Court further identified several relevant factors under Rule 9, including the gravity of abuse, the prolonged nature of trauma, the relationship of offenders with the children, expenditure likely to be incurred for therapy and rehabilitation, and the psychological impact suffered by the children.
The Bench noted that the abuse in the present case had continued over multiple years and had resulted in post-traumatic stress disorder suffered by the victim children.
Conclusion
The Madras High Court held that the Trial Court erred in failing to award adequate compensation despite the statutory mandate under the POCSO framework and the material on record concerning the continuing trauma suffered by the victim children.
The Court proceeded to determine appropriate compensation after considering Rule 9 of the POCSO Rules, the Tamil Nadu Child Victim Compensation Fund scheme, and the decisions of the Supreme Court concerning the rehabilitation of child victims of sexual offences.
Cause Title: XXX v. State & Ors.