Back
2017 Supreme(Cal) 291
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.
Piyali Dutta - Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Others - Respondents
W.P. No. 26174 (W) of 2014 (Appellate Side)
Decided On : 07-07-2017
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Compensation and Damages
Act Referred
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.357(a), S.357(4), S.357(a)(4), S.357(b), S.2(wa)
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.326(a), S.326(d)
WEST BENGAL VICTIM COMPENSATION SCHEME : .
Headnote
Compensation - Acid Attack Victim - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 357A - Summary
Fact of the Case:
An acid attack victim seeks compensation. The claim for compensation is resisted on the ground that the incident happened prior to the introduction of Section 357A to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Victim Compensation Schemes. The petitioner argues that she is entitled to compensation under the scheme and Section 357A, as they are beneficial in nature and should be interpreted to grant relief to victims. The State argues that victims prior to the introduction of Section 357A are not entitled to compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court finds that a person suffering an acid attack prior to December 31, 2009 is entitled to compensation under Section 357A. The West Bengal Victim Compensation Scheme, 2017, allows victims to apply for compensation, and the adjudicating authority can decide on the sufficiency of reasons for any delay in application. Neither Section 357A nor the Scheme prescribe a date prior to which a victim cannot be granted compensation or rehabilitation. The court directs the appropriate authority to decide the petitioner's application for compensation under the Scheme of 2017.
Issues: (1) Is a person suffering acid attacks prior to December 31, 2009 entitled to compensation under Section 357A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973? (2) Does the Schemes of the State cover acid attack victims suffering such attacks prior to November 1, 2012? (3) Does Section 357A and the Schemes contemplate any date beyond which an acid attack victim would not be entitled to compensation? (4) What relief are the parties entitled to?
Ratio Decidendi: The court interprets Section 357A and the Scheme to allow compensation for acid attack victims without imposing a time restriction. It emphasizes the universal need for compensation and rehabilitation for victims of specified crimes, regardless of the time of occurrence of the crime.
Final Decision: The court decides in favor of the petitioner, granting her entitlement to compensation under Section 357A and directing the appropriate authority to decide her application for compensation under the Scheme of 2017.
Pritha Bhaumik, Apalak Basu, Amitava Mitra, Kaushik Gupta, Anirban Tarafdar, Advocates.
1. An acid attack victim seeks compensation.
2. The claim for compensation is sought to be resisted on behalf of the respondents on the ground that, the incident of acid attack having happened prior to the introduction of Section 357A to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the West Bengal Victim Compensation Scheme, 2017 and the Victim Compensation Scheme, 2012 as well as the judgment and order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported at 2016 Volume 3 SCC page 669 (Laxmi v. Union of India & Ors.), the petitioner is not entitled to the compensation as sought for.
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is a victim of an acid attack perpetuated on her on August 4, 2005. At that material point of time, the government had no scheme for compensating a victim of acid attack. A victim of acid attack requires substantial assistance to reconstruct, if possible, her personal self and life. She also requires compensation. The provisions of Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not in place at the time of occurrence of the attack on her. Consequently, the petitioner could not lodge her claim. She is entitled to compensation in the terms of the scheme. The scheme granting compensation and Section 357A both being beneficial in nature, an interpretation should be given to the scheme and the provisions of such section so as to grant relief to the persons for whom such provisions have come into being.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, Laxmi (supra) is a case where the petitioner therein had suffered an acid attack prior to 2006. The Supreme Court considering the plight of an acid attack victim had directed the authorities to formulate a scheme for the purpose of compensating an acid attack victim. Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was inserted with effect from December 31, 2009. The petitioner in Laxmi (supra) was allowed to receive the compensation, although the acid attack had happened prior to 2006. The petitioner is similarly situated and circumstanced as the petitioner in Laxmi (supra). The incident of acid attack is prior to the amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the decision rendered in Laxmi (supra). The petitioner herein and petitioner in Laxmi (supra) being similarly situated and circumstanced, the relief granted in Laxmi (supra) should be extended to the petitioner herein. She also relies upon orders passed by the Bombay High Court in support of the contention that, directions can be issued to pay acid attack victim of incidents of crimes happening prior to Laxmi (supra) as well as the amendment to Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The State has formulated two schemes for compensating an acid attack victim. The first scheme is of November 1, 2012. The same was replaced by a scheme of 2017 coming into being on February 17, 2017. She refers to both the schemes and submits that, none of the two schemes being with a cut-off date, the State should be directed to compensate an acid attack victim prior to the two schemes and the amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. She refers to 2016 Volume 3 SCC page 571 (Parivartan Kendra v. Union of India & Ors.) and submits that, the Supreme Court noticing the plights of the acid attack victims, in addition to the other directions contained therein, has directed the States and the Union Territories to take appropriate steps to include the victim in the disability test.
5. Learned Advocate appearing for the State submits that, every acid attack victim is not entitled to compensation under the scheme of 2017 which is presently under force. The earlier scheme of 2012 was replaced by the scheme of 2017. He refers to clause (4) of the scheme of 2017 and submits that, acid attack victims prior to the insertion of Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are not entitled to claim compensation as an acid attack victim. The incident in respect of the petition
