The Rajasthan High Court while citing Manusmriti in a case, directed the compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the minor victims of rape with whom the incident had occurred prior to the year 2009, provided they submitted claim in this regard prior to 2009.

The Jaipur Bench was dealing with a writ petition filed by the father of a minor rape victim whose application before the District Collector for compensation remained undecided.

A Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand quoted, “Yatra naryastu pujyante ramante tatra Devata, yatraitaastu na pujyante sarvaastatrafalaah kriyaah” is a famous shloka in Manusmruti which means “where women are honoured, divinity blossoms there and where women are dishonoured, all actions no matter how noble remain unfruitful.”

The Court said that the crime of rape can be regarded as the highest torture inflicted upon womanhood which causes not only the physical torture to the body of the woman but adversely affects her mental, psychological, and emotional sensitivity.

Advocate Naina Saraf appeared on behalf of the petitioner while none was present on behalf of the respondents.

In this case, an unfortunate incident occurred with a two years old minor daughter of the petitioner-father in 2004, when rape was committed by the respondent-accused and an FIR was registered against him for the offences under Sections 365 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). After investigation, he was charge-sheeted and tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur City, who found him guilty and convicted him for the offences under Sections 365 and 376 IPC vide a judgment in 2005.

The accused was sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- for each offence, but no compensation was awarded to the minor victim. After passing of the said judgment, the father submitted an application before the District Collector, Jaipur for grant of compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- to his daughter, a minor rape victim, but the said application remained undecided for want of any such provision in law.

The High Court in view of the above facts observed, “… rape is treated as the most heinous crime against the very basic human right and woman’s most important fundamental right, namely ‘the right of life’. It is less a sexual offence than an act of aggression aimed at degrading and humiliating women. Such cases are required to be handled by the Courts with utmost sensitivity and high responsibility.”

The question that arose before the court for its consideration was, (a) whether the minor daughter of the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of the Victim Compensation Scheme under Section 357A of Cr.P.C.? and (b) whether the provisions, contained under the Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011 are applicable with its retrospective effect or prospective effect?

“Following the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of District Collector Vs. DLSA (supra), the Karnataka High Court held in the case of Vakalpudi Venkanna Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in MANU/KA/2277/2022 that the provisions contained under Section 357A of Cr.P.C. as well as the Karnataka Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011 are applicable to the incidents occurred prior to the said provision/scheme coming into force”, noted the Court.

The Court said that it finds no valid reason to take a different view from the other High Courts in the cases of District Collector v. District Legal Service Authority & Ors. (2020 SCC OnLine Ker 8292), Achiya Bibi v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (2019 SCC OnLine Cal 1950), and Vakalpudi Venkanna v. The State of Karnataka & Ors. (MANU/KA/2277/2022).

It also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Haroon & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition (Criminal) No.155/2013] in which it was held that no compensation can be adequate but since the State has failed in protecting the serious violation of fundamental rights, the State is duty bound to provide compensation, which may help victim’s rehabilitation.

“The Hon’ble Supreme Court also noted that “the obligation of the State does not extinguish on payment of compensation, rehabilitation of victim is also of paramount importance. The mental trauma that the victim suffers due to commission of such heinous crime, rehabilitation becomes a must in each and every case.”, added the Court.

Furthermore, the Court held that that the amended provisions contained under Section 357A of Cr.P.C. as well as the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011 are applicable to the incidents occurred prior to enactment of the said provision and the Scheme, 2011 and the victim like the minor daughter of the petitioner is entitled to get compensation in terms of the Scheme of 2011.

“Crime of rape committed with the minor victim is a dehumanizing one and an affront to human dignity. Hence, compensation should be awarded as a solace to the victim. … Minor victims of rape are entitled to get compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- with whom the incident has occurred prior to the year 2009 provided they submitted claim in this regard prior to the year 2009. A general mandamus is issued in favour of all minor victims of rape with whom the incident of rape was committed prior to year 2009 for award of compensation. This general mandamus would be applicable only in those cases where the applications were submitted prior to amendment of Section 357A Cr.P.C.”, observed the Court.

The Court, therefore, directed the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority (RSLSA) as well as the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to make compliance of its order in terms of the provisions contained under the Scheme of 2011 and the guidelines issued by RSLSA within a period of three months.

Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to pay compensation to the victim after adjusting the amount received by her earlier.

Cause Title- G.K. S/o N.K. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2023:RJ-JP:38825)

Click here to read/download the Judgment