ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

2. During midst of pendency of instant appeal two interlocutory applications, one bearing I.A. No.898 of 2016 and the other I.A. No.2089 of 2016 have been filed on behalf of informant.

3. Basing its plea over principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Suresh & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2015(1) PLJR 104 (SC), a prayer has been made on behalf of informant in accordance with Section 357, 357-A of the Cr.P.C. by way of filing I.A. No.898 of 2016 asking for interim compensation for her rehabilitation. I.A. no.2089 of 2016 has been filed in terms of Article 141, 144, 251 of the Constitution of India to direct the subordinate courts to pass appropriate order in terms of Section 357 as well as 357A, invariably so that victim of the crime could get compensation under victim compensation scheme as well as for proper implementation thereof and for that, a general direction should be issued in the background of decision having been laid down by the Kerala High Court in Sabu E.K. and another Vs. State & Ors. reported in 2016 Cr.L.J. 3418.

4. As the final adjudication of instant appeal yet to be performed on account thereof, in spite of having availability of relevant provision in terms of Section 357 as well as 357A, guiding victim compensation scheme, the same could not be decided nor any kind of order prejudicial to the interest of appellant could be passed, in his absence on account thereof, proper subjudication of I.A. No.2089 of 2016 is directed to be kept in abeyance.

5. Section 357 provides grant of compensation to the victim which comes into play during course of final adjudication and on account thereof, the same is not at all found applicable at the present moment on account of pending of instant appeal. Consequent there upon, prayer of the petitioner/informant under I.A. No.898/2016 to that extent is found not at all entertainable.

6. Now coming to applicability of Section 357A of the Cr.P.C. which has been introduced by the Act 5 of 2009 effective from 31.12.2009 casting obligation on State, have repeatedly been considered by the Apex Court. In Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2013) 6 SCC 770, it has been held:

“46. The amendments to CrPC brought about in 2008 focused heavily on the rights of victims in a criminal trial, particularly in trials relating to sexual offences. Though the 2008 amendments left Section 357 unchanged, they introduced Section 357-A under which the Court is empowered to direct the State to pay compensation to the victim in such cases where

“the compensation awarded under Section 357 is not adequate for such rehabilitation, or where the cases end in acquittal or discharge and the victim has to be rehabilitated”.

Under this provision, even if the accused is not tried but the victim needs to be rehabilitated, the victim may request the State or District Legal Services Authority to award him/her compensation. This provision was introduced due to the recommendations made by the Law Commission of India in its 152nd and 154th Reports in 1994 and 1996 respectively.

47. The 154th Law Commission Report on CrPC devoted an entire chapter to ?Victimology in which the growing emphasis on victims rights in criminal trials was discussed extensively as under:

“1. Increasingly the attention of criminologists, penologists and reformers of criminal justice system has been directed to victimology, control of victimisation and protection of victims of crimes. Crimes often entail substantive harm to people and not merely symbolic harm to the social order. Consequently, the needs and rights of victims of crime should receive priority attention in the total response to crime. One recognised method of protection of victims is compensation to victims of crime. The needs of victims and their family are extensive and varied.

* * *

9.1. The principles of victimology has