JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. M Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate for the respondents No.1, 3 and 4 respectively being the authorities under the Home and Political Department, Government of Assam as well as the District Legal Services Authorities South Salmara, Mankachar district and Ms. R S Chowdhury, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 being the Assam State Legal Services Authority. We also requested Mr. Ashok Saraf, learned Senior counsel to act as Amicus Curiae in the matter and have also heard the learned Amicus Curiae and appreciate that the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel have immensely contributed in arriving at the judgment.

2. The daughter of the petitioner namely Nilima Khatun was killed by slitting her throat by the accused on 31.03.2009 and in this respect South Salmara P.S. Case No.58/2009 had been registered amongst others, under Section 302 of the IPC. It is stated that the South Salmara P.S. Case No.58/2009 resulted in Sessions Case No.170/2010 in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge Dhubri which resulted in the judgment dated 11.11.2014 wherein the accused person was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.

3. In the circumstance, the petitioner made an application under Sections 357(A) of the Cr.P.C., seeking for compensation being a victim. By the order impugned dated 03.02.2022 of the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, South Salmara Mankachar compensation as a victim was rejected by taking recourse to Clause 4(1) of the Notification dated 18.10.2012 of the Assam Victim Compensation Scheme 2012 (for short, the Scheme of 2012) by arriving at a conclusion that the petitioner failed to produce any relevant material to show that the incident of causing death to his daughter Nilima Khatun had not resulted in the petitioner being unable to meet his both ends without any financial aid or that he had spent beyond his means on medical treatment of the victim.

4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 03.02.2022 of the Chairman DLSA, this writ petition is instituted. The question for determination which arises is whether a victim would be disentitled to compensation under the Scheme of 2012 if such person fails to bring on record any material to show that he is unable to make his both ends meet or that he had spent beyond his financial means on the treatment of the person affected by the crime. The basis for arriving at such conclusion by the Chairman DLSA in its impugned order dated 03.02.2022 is by referring to Clause 4(1) of the Notification dated 18.10.2012 of the Scheme of 2012 which is extracted as below:

“4.(1) Loss or injury sustained by the victim or his dependents should have caused substantial loss to the income of the family making it difficult to meet their both ends without the financial aid or has to spend beyond his means on medical treatment of mental/physical injury and a recommendation is made by the Court for compensation.”

5. A reading of Clause 4(1) of the Notification dated 18.10.2012 makes it discernible that in order to be eligible for compensation the victim or his dependant should satisfy that the loss or injury sustained by the victim or his dependents should have caused substantial loss to the income of the family making it difficult to meet his both ends without the financial aid or has to spend beyond his means on medical treatment of mental or physical injury that may have been caused and that a recommendation is made by the Court for compensation.

6. Admittedly, the Scheme of 2012 has been framed in exercise of the power under Section 357 A of the Cr.P.C of 1973. Section 357 A of the Cr.P.C is extracted as below:

357A. Victim Compensation Scheme (1) Every State Government in coordination with the Central Government shall prepare a scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation to the victim or his dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of