The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the court to consider payment of just and reasonable compensation to victims of crime and provide rehabilitation measures, as mandated by the statutory provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

JUDGMENT

Ujjal Bhuyan, J. - Heard Ms. Aditi Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Purav, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2. None has appeared for respondent No.3 - Union of India.

2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner basically seeks a direction to the respondents to grant her compensation by treating her burn injuries caused due to pouring of corrosive substance on her at par with victims of acid attack under the Manodhairya Compensation Scheme framed by the Government of Maharashtra. Additional prayers have been made which also pertain to providing further compensation to the petitioner.

3. Petitioner married Nityanand Jagan Shetty on 22.04.2005 and out of the wedlock two sons were born. She resides at Room No.147, Shivaji Chawl, S. V. Road, Shanti Nagar, Dongri, Dahisar (East), Mumbai. While the husband remains unemployed, petitioner earns her livelihood by selling imitation jewellery in local trains.

3.1. On 24.11.2010 at about 5:00 a.m. when the petitioner was sleeping, the husband removed the bed-sheet (chadar) from her face and before the petitioner could realize what was happening, the husband poured boiling inflammable corrosive substance on her face and body. Though the petitioner tried to resist with both the hands, the substance fell on face and other parts of her body.

3.2. On hearing her hue and cry, neighbours rushed her to the Bhagwati Hospital, Borivali where her statement was recorded on the basis of which first information was registered before the Charkop Police Station. Considering the serious condition of the petitioner, she was later on admitted to Eric Kharas Burns Research Unit, Masina Hospital under the care of Dr. A. M. Vartak. As per statement of medical officer, petitioner had suffered 70% to 80% superficial to deep burns on her face and body.

3.3. In the course of her treatment in Masina Hospital, it is stated that petitioner had spent more than Rs.5,00,000.00. However, considering her disfigurement further treatment and surgeries are required. But in the absence of any funds, petitioner is unable to undergo any further medical treatment. Injuries suffered by the petitioner and which require further treatment / surgeries are as follows:-

"1. Both the outer ear of the Petitioner are damaged and she is unable to wear corrective spectacles for her eye defect.

2. Petitioners skin has become sensitive due to burns.

3. Petitioner does not have eyebrows because of the burns.

4. Petitioners lips are also damaged because of which the movement of lips is restricted."

4. It may be mentioned that out of the first information registered before the Charkop Police Station on the basis of petitioners statement, Sessions Case No.33 of 2011 came to be registered in the Court of Sessions, Borivali Division, Dindoshi. The accused i.e., the husband was charged with committing offence under sections 307 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). By the judgment and order dated 24.11.2011, the husband was convicted under both the sections of IPC and thereafter sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000.00 with default stipulation for the offence under section 307 IPC and to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 with default stipulation for the offence under section 201 IPC, both the sentences to run concurrently. Out of the fine amount, it was directed that Rs.20,000.00 be paid to the petitioner as compensation.

5. Husband preferred appeal before this court which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.92 of 2012. During the hearing of the criminal appeal, petitioner informed the court about her desire to stay with the accused notwithstanding what he had done to her. Petitioner was present before the court where she indicated that she wanted to forgive her husband and that she would have no objection if the appeal was allowed. This court observed that such a stand of the peti