The acquittal of an accused does not preclude a victim's right to compensation under the Odisha Victim Compensation Scheme if the victim meets eligibility criteria, as outlined in Section 357A of the Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus from this Court, quashing the order passed by the opposite parties that rejected the payment of compensation to the Petitioner under the ODISHA VICTIM COMPENSATION SCHEME , 2017.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) On 22.10.2020/ the petitioner’s husband/Naba Kishore Naik/ and daughter-in-law were allegedly brutally assaulted by her son, Raju Naik/ with a crowbar while intoxicated. The petitioner’s husband succumbed to his injuries during treatment at Daspalla Hospital.

(ii) Consequently, an FIR was lodged by villagers on 23.10.2020, leading to the registration of P.S. Case No. 159 of 2020 under section 341, 323, 324, 294, and 506 of the IPC at Daspalla Police Station.

(iii) The petitioner applied for compensation under the ODISHA VICTIM COMPENSATION SCHEME , 2017, with a representation submitted on 06.08.2021. As per Schedule-I of the scheme, a victim is eligible for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 in case of death or loss of life.

(iv) The District Legal Service Authority, Nayagarh, presided over by the learned District Judge, rejected the claim on 21.05.2022. The rejection was based on the fact that out of 14 prosecution witnesses examined (out of 20)/ 12 did not support the prosecution’s case. As a result of that/the accused was accused from the charge.

(v) The petitioner then appealed against this rejection to the State Legal Authority, which upheld the initial decision.

(vi) The petitioner then approached this Court in W.P(C) No. 21601 of 2022.

On 07.09.2022, the Court directed the opposite party No. 3 to consider and address the petitioner’s representation within three weeks.

(vii) The order was communicated to opposite party No. 3 on 24.09.2022 but no compensation was granted. Eventually, on 09.01.2023, the opposite party No. 1 dismissed the appeal in Victim Compensation Appeal No.15 of 2022.

(viii) Aggrieved by such rejection, the petitioner approached this Court, praying for the issuance of the Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, quashing the order passed by opposite party no. 1 on 09.01.2023, and directing the Opposite Parties to grant compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 as per the ODISHA VICTIM COMPENSATION SCHEME , 2017.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The petitioner submitted that, she qualifies as a victim under Section 2 (wa) of the Cr.P.C. and Rule 2(g) of the ODISHA VICTIM COMPENSATION SCHEME / 2017/ having suffered loss and injury due to her husband’s murder.

(ii) He further submitted that, the grounds for rejecting the claim of the petitioner are unsustainable and demonstrate a lack of judicial consideration. The petitioner’s exclusion as a prosecution witness should not disqualify her from receiving compensation.

(iii) The petitioner contended that she meets the eligibility criteria outlined in Rule 7 of the ODISHA VICTIM COMPENSATION SCHEME , 2017. Rule 7(c) requires victims to cooperate with the police and prosecution, but the petitioner was never cited as a prosecution witness.

(iv) He further contended that the acquittal of the accused due to lack of witness support should not affect the petitioner’s right to compensation.

(v) It is asserted that the petitioner’s husband’s death has caused significant hardship, as he was the sole breadwinner of t