1. Petition challenging rejection of interim compensation for minor rape victim under Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 541
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
S D/o A – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 651 of 2017
Decided On : 12-03-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Rambabu Sharma
For the Respondent: Jitendra Singh Rathore
For the Appellant : Rambabu Sharma
For the Respondent: Jitendra Singh Rathore
State authorities implementing victim compensation schemes cannot reject applications on technical grounds, such as missing certificates from police or courts; they must proactively obtain such documents to ensure the rehabilitation of victims, particularly in cases of heinous crimes.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 323, 341 and 376-D - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act - Sections 3 and 4 - Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 357 and 357A - State Victim Compensation Scheme - Grant of interim compensation to rape victim - Application rejected by the District Legal Services Authority on the technical ground of absence of a certificate from the Station House Officer or Magistrate - Rape is a violation of the most basic human right and the right to life, and cases must be handled with utmost sensitivity (Para 1) - Compensation under Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and state schemes is intended for rehabilitation and to reduce the continuing suffering and trauma of victims (Paras 10, 11, 12) - Implementing authorities should avoid rejecting applications on procedural technicalities and instead proactively seek required certifications from the concerned official or court (Paras 8, 21).
(B) Victimology and State Obligation - A crime victim has a right to be adequately compensated, rehabilitated, and repaired (Para 10) - The State is duty-bound to provide compensation to help in the rehabilitation of victims of serious violations of fundamental rights, and this obligation does not extinguish simply upon payment (Para 18).
Facts of the case:
A minor victim of rape applied for interim compensation under a state victim compensation scheme. The application was rejected by the District Legal Services Authority on the technical ground that no certificate regarding the grant of interim compensation had been issued by the concerned Station House Officer or Magistrate.
Findings of Court:
The court found it shocking that the application of a minor rape victim was rejected on a technical count. Instead of rejecting the application, the authority should have requested the necessary certificate from the Station House Officer or Magistrate.
Issues: Whether the application for interim compensation under a victim compensation scheme could be rejected solely on the technical ground of the absence of a certificate from the Station House Officer or Magistrate.
Ratio Decidendi: Authorities implementing victim compensation schemes must ensure the process is not hindered by procedural formalities that compel survivors to run from pillar to post. To maintain the spirit of rehabilitation, the implementing authority should independently obtain the necessary verification or certificates from the police or trial courts rather than insisting the victim provide them.
Result: Impugned order quashed and set aside; directions issued to the District Legal Services Authority to pass appropriate orders for interim and final compensation and to the State Legal Services Authority to adopt a uniform policy for distribution of compensation without insisting on certificates from the victims.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
-
constitutional law
-
fundamental rights
- right to life (Para 1)
-
fundamental rights
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner sought interim compensation; DLSA rejected application citing absence of required certificate from SHO/Magistrate. (Para 7 )
3. DLSA erred in rejecting application on technical ground without seeking certificate; compensation is State duty for rehabilitation. (Para 8 , 10 , 18 , 20 )
4. State is duty-bound to provide compensation for rape victims; technicalities should not hinder rehabilitation and reparation. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 21 )
5. Impugned order quashed; DLSA directed to pass fresh orders on compensation application after obtaining certificate; writ disposed. (Para 21 , 22 )
6. Can a victim's compensation application be rejected solely for lack of a certificate from the SHO or Magistrate?
No. The DLSA should itself obtain the certificate instead of insisting the victim procure it, as per the scheme and circulars. (Para 8 , 20 , 21 )
7. Is the State obligated to provide compensation to rape victims even if the accused is not convicted?
Yes. The State is duty-bound to compensate victims for rehabilitation irrespective of conviction, acquittal, or identity of the offender. (Para 10 , 16 , 18 )
8. What is the purpose of victim compensation under the Criminal Procedure Code?
To provide reparation and rehabilitation to victims, reducing their continuing suffering and trauma, as recognized under Section 357A Cr.P.C. (Para 11 , 12 , 16 )
ORDER :
1. The crime of rape can be regarded as the highest torture inflicted upon womanhood. It causes not only the physical torture to the body of the woman but it adversely affects her mental, psychological and emotional sensitivity. Therefore, rape is treated as the most heinous crime against the very basic human right and woman’s most important fundamental right, namely ‘the right of life’. It is less a sexual offence than an act of aggression aimed at degrading and humiliating women. Such cases are required to be handled by the Courts with utmost sensitivity and high responsibility.
2. An unfortunate incident occurred with a 14 years old minor petitioner on 11.11.2014, when rape was committed by the accused and an FIR No.391/2014 was registered against the accused with the Police Station Sikari, Bharatpur for the offences under Sections 323, 341 and 376-D of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and after investigation, the accused was charge- sheeted for the offence under Section 3 76-D and Section 3 /4 of the POCSO Act and he is facing trial before the Court of Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Bharatpur.
3. By way of filing the instant petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 15.03.2017, passed by the Full Time Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Bharatpur (for short ‘the DLSA’) by which the application submitted by the petitioner seeking interim compensation for the incident of rape committed with her, pertaining to Sessions Case No. 128/2015 State Vs. Ayub has been rejected.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the instant criminal writ petition seeking appropriate directions against the respondents for grant of interim compensation to the petitioner.
5. The contents of the petition indicate that the petitioner is a minor victim who was subjected to rape by the accused for which an FIR No. 391/2014 was registered with the Police Station Sikari, Bharatpur for the offences under Sections 323, 341 and 376-D of IPC.
6. After investigation of the matter, charge-sheet was submitted for the offences punishable under the POCSO Act and IPC, against the accused before the Court of Sessions Judge, POCSO Court, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 128/2015 wherein the statement of the petitioner-prosecutrix victim, was recorded on 11.07.2016 and thereafter statements of other prosecution witnesses were also recorded on subsequent dates.
7. At this stage of trial, the petitioner approached the DLSA by way of fling an application for grant of interim compensation pursuant to the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011. The said application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected on a technical count that no certificate with regard to grant of interim compensation has been issued by the concerned Station House Officer/Magistrate and in absence of the same, the application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected.
8. It is a quite shocking and surprising on the part of the DLSA to reject the application of the petitioner who is a minor rape victim. Instead of rejecting the petitioner's application seeking interim compensation, the DLSA could have ask the concerned SHO or Magistrate to send a certificate with regard to the petitioner's entitlement for interim compensation but instead of doing so, the application submitted by the petitioner has been erroneously rejected only on the technical count of absence of the aforesaid certificate.
9. The need for compensating rape survivors was recognized by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh in the case of Al Amin Vs. State , (1999) 19 BLD (HCD) 307 where it was held that “Mere punishment of the offenders of sexual assault cannot give much solace to the victim and her family members. Adequate monetary compensation may redress the wrong and damage caused to the victims and the family members. This has to be awarded independently having no nexus with the provision of imposition of fine embodied in the Pena
