Rajasthan High Court Quashes Order Rejecting Compensation To Minor Rape Survivor For Not Furnishing Details Of Income

The Rajasthan High Court set aside a trial court order which had rejected a minor rape victim's plea for compensation under State Victim Compensation Scheme on the technical ground that she did not furnish details of her source of income for making payment of her school fee, etc.

In doing so the court observed that such cases are to be dealt with sensitivity by courts and the crime being a dehumanizing one, compensation should be awarded as a solace to the victim. 

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in his order said:

"The crime of rape can be regarded as the highest form of torture inflicted upon womanhood. It not only inflicts physical torture upon the body of the woman, but also adversely affects her mental, psychological and emotional well-being. Therefore, rape is treated as the most heinous crime against the very basic human right conferred upon the woman i.e., 'the right of life and dignity'. It is not merely a sexual offence, but an act of aggression aimed at degrading and humiliating the woman. Such cases are required to be handled by the Courts with utmost sensitivity and high responsibility. 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 form of solace to the victim". 

The court was considering a plea moved by rape survivor challenging POCSO court's order which rejected her plea for grant of compensation under the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011 and under Rule 9 of the POCSO Rules 2020.

The accused was booked and convicted under Section 363(kidnapping) and 376(rape) IPC, and Section 3/4 POCSO and sentenced to undergo 20 years of rigorous imprisonment.

During the pendency of trial an application, seeking interim compensation, was submitted, but it was not decided and remained pending until the passing of the judgment against the accused.

Thereafter an application seeking compensation was submitted before the Special Judge, POCSO Cases, but the same was rejected without entering into the merits of the case but on a technical ground that the petitioner did not furnish the details of her source of income for making payment of her school fee, etc. and no document in this regard was produced. 

The petitioner's counsel argued that this cannot be a ground for rejection of compensation as under the scheme it  is required to be seen whether the victim has been raped or sexually assaulted.

The Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer, but he was not in a position to controvert the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.

The high court observed that the ground based on which the petitioner's plea for compensation was rejected, "cannot be the sole ground for rejection".

The court referred to a decision of the Bangladesh Supreme Court in Al Amin Vs. The State  (1999) where it was held:

"Mere punishment of the offenders of sexual assault cannot give much solace to the victim and her family members. Adequate monetary compensation may redress the wrong and damage caused to the victims and the family members. The compensation has to be awarded independently having no nexus with the provision of imposition of fine embodied in the Penal Code. A permanent mode of compensation has to be worked out….”

The high court said that modern approach of victimology acknowledges that a crime victim has a right to be adequately compensated, rehabilitated and repaired.

"From a humanitarian point of view, there is no scope to dispute the fact that the victims of crime, especially the victims of rape, must have access to mechanisms such as 'reparation' or 'compensation' that can help reduce their continuing sufferings and trauma," the court added. 

The court also said that Rajasthan Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, 2023 (enacted after 2011 scheme) applies to the women victims/survivors of sexual assault and other crimes and their dependents. It said that its implementation has been shouldered on the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority ('RSLSA') and the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA). 

The court thus set aside the POCSO court's order and said:

"In view of the discussions made herein above, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned order stands quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Court below for deciding the application, submitted by the petitioner, afresh in terms of Rule 9 of the Rules of 2020 and in terms of the Scheme of 2011. Needless to observe that a fresh order shall be passed by the Court below within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order".

The court further said that "in the alternative", the petitioner would be at liberty to submit an application, in terms of the procedure/process contained under the 2011 Scheme before the concerned Secretary, DLSA, in the requisite format along with the copy of the judgment of conviction of the accused.

The court said that in case the petitioner choses to file such an application then the Secretary, DLSA is expected to decide it expeditiously as per law.

The high court however made it clear that the petitioner would not submit two different applications before the Special Judge, POCSO and the Secretary, DLSA simultaneously; she is free to submit "only one application before either of the authorities" and she is not supposed to approach both the platforms for redressal of her grievances. 

The plea was partly allowed.

Case title: Victim v/s State of Rajasthan

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1920/2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order