The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State is bound to pay adequate compensation to a victim of a heinous crime, and interest on the compensation amount may be justified based on the circumstances of the case.

1. This appeal by the appellant-State of Tamil Nadu is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th November, 2009 passed in W.P.No. 15306 of 2000 whereby the learned single Judge awarded a compensation of Rs.9 lakhs together with interest at 9% as compensation to the first respondent-writ petitioner, who was the victim of rape at the hands of the superior police officials.

2. The writ petition was filed seeking a mandamus directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.9 lakhs as compensation on account of the criminal act committed by the second respondent-former Deputy Superintendent of Police.

3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:- The first respondent-writ petitioner was residing in Nagal Kulam Village within the limits of Nanguneri Police Circle in Tirunelveli District. The second respondent was the Inspector of Police, Nanguneri Circle in the year 1984. It seems that there was a dispute between the writ petitioner and her sister-in-law with respect to the residential house where she was residing. According to the writ petitioner, her sister-in-law was in forcible occupation of a portion of the house. Annoyed over the issue, the writ petitioner and her husband went to the residence-cum-office of the second respondent on 7th June, 1984 to prefer a complaint of forcible occupation of her house by her sister-in-law. The first respondent reached the office of the second respondent at about 6.00 p.m. and reported the matter to him, who in turn told the first respondent that her sister-in-law had already given a complaint against her and her husband through an advocate, who will be coming soon, and he assured her husband that he will finish the enquiry soon and send the first respondent. According to the first respondent, only thereafter she came to know the motive of the second respondent in sending her husband and before she could realize the ground reality, the second respondent by show of force committed rape on her.

4. Knocking the doors of justice, the petitioner filed a complaint before the District Superintendent of Police on 08.06.1984, which was registered as a case in Crime No.555/1984 under Section 376 IPC on the file of Palayamkottai Police Station. The complaint was forwarded to the Sub-Collector, Cheranmadevi for enquiry, who in turn conducted an enquiry on 13.06.1984 and submitted his report.

5. When the matter thus stood, the second respondent filed a petition before this Court in Crl.M.P.No.4176 of 1984 to quash the First Information Report registered in Cr.No.555/1984 on the ground that before the submission of report by the Revenue Divisional Officer, it is not permissible in law to register a First Information Report. The said petition was allowed by the High Court. Meanwhile, the Revenue Divisional Officer submitted his report, which was challenged by the second respondent in W.P.No.8/85 for a direction to quash the report. The said writ petition was also allowed directing to conduct a fresh enquiry after giving opportunity to the second respondent.

6. Again the process was started afresh. The Revenue Divisional Officer conducted enquiry on 13.09.1988. The petitioner was examined twice and other witnesses were also examined, nearly after four years from the date of the incident. Thereafter, a report was submitted to the Government. The Government of Tamil Nadu accepted the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer and issued G.O.Ms.No.1244 dated 25th July, 1989, by which a direction was issued to initiate criminal proceedings as well as departmental enquiry against the second respondent. The aforesaid Government order was challenged by the second respondent in W.P.No.1209 of 1989, which was dismissed on 06.03.1990.

7. Meanwhile, the second respondent was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police. In pursuance of G.O.No.1244, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmadevi filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri in P.R.C.No.1/1990. The petitioner appeared befor