The trial court must award interim compensation to child sexual abuse victims based on statutory provisions, irrespective of subsequent statements that may contradict earlier claims.

JUDGMENT

(VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING)

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (Oral)--The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the child victim `A', through her mother, assailing the order dated 24.04.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-06, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in FIR No. 394/2020 registered under Section 363 IPC at P.S. Mundka, Delhi, whereby the application moved on behalf of the child victim seeking grant of interim compensation was dismissed.

2. The present FIR came to be registered on a complaint given by the elder brother of the child victim, wherein it was stated that the child victim, who was aged about 12 years and 02 months, had gone missing and it was suspected that their neighbour had enticed her away. Subsequently, on 30.03.2021, the child victim was produced before the concerned Police Station by her brother and her medical examination was conducted at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi. At the hospital, the child victim underwent the Urine Pregnancy Test (hereinafter, referred to as the `UPT') and the test came out to be positive.

The statement of the child victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein she stated that the accused, a neighbour, had forcibly established sexual relations with her and taken her to Bihar without her consent. On the basis of the same, Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter, referred to as the `POCSO Act') were added to the case. Later, on 08.04.2021, statement of the child victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she did not support the allegations levelled earlier in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The charge sheet has been filed and charges already framed. The matter is stated to be listed for prosecution evidence.

3. Ms. Supriya Juneja, learned counsel for the child victim, while assailing the impugned order, contends that the impugned order was passed in total contravention of the mandate of Section 33(8) of the POCSO Act and Rule 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2012 (hereinafter, referred to as the `POCSO Rules') (pari materia to Rule 9 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020.) She further submits that during her medical examination, the UPT of the child victim was conducted and the same was found positive. It is also submitted that in the present case, Section 6 of the POCSO Act is involved and the child victim is yet to be examined in trial. Learned counsel informs that the child victim has also undergone medical termination of pregnancy and submits that in this backdrop, rejection of award of interim compensation to the child victim under Section 357A Cr.P.C. and Section 33(8) of the POCSO Act for the reason that she has not supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was patently illegal.

4. Mr. Amit Ahlawat, learned APP for the State, has supported the case of the child victim.

5. A Reply Affidavit has been placed on record on behalf of respondent No. 2/Delhi State Legal Services Authority, wherein it is stated that the authority to award and quantify the amount of interim/final compensation for child victims lies with the Special POCSO Courts. It is also stated that as per the relevant provisions of the POCSO Act and POCSO Rules, the interim compensation is to be awarded by the Special Courts only in appropriate cases, after considering the facts and circumstances, and not in a routine manner pursuant to filing of an application in that regard.

6. I