SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 14564

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Kaushik Goswami, J
Asiran Nessa Bibi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
WP(C)/1574/2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M Hussain, M Khan, A.K. Mollah, R I Mondal
For the Respondents: GA, Assam, R S Chowdhury, B Gogoi, R S Choudhury

Victim compensation under Section 357A of the Criminal Procedure Code is an independent statutory right not contingent upon the conviction of the accused or trial court recommendations. It is a time-neutral, beneficial provision intended for victim rehabilitation, ensuring that delay or acquittal does not defeat the victim's claim.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 357A - Victim Compensation Scheme - Rejection of compensation after acquittal - Legality - The scheme under Section 357A is independent of the outcome of a criminal trial - Compensation is not contingent upon conviction and may be granted in cases of acquittal where the victim requires rehabilitation - There exists a mandatory duty on the court to apply its mind to the question of compensation and record reasons for granting or refusing the same (Paras 7, 8, 15).

(B) Victim Compensation - Delay in application - Whether fatal to claim - Section 357A is a beneficial and time-neutral piece of legislation - Introduction of limitation or delay as a disqualifying factor defeats the primary object of the statute - Rejection of claims on the ground of delay is legally unsustainable (Paras 11, 12, 13).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a widow, sought victim compensation following the murder of her husband. Her application was rejected by the legal services authority on the grounds that the trial court did not award compensation at the time of acquittal and that the application was filed with significant delay.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the trial court's failure to address compensation did not prejudice the victim’s right to claim under the statutory scheme. The legal services authority has an independent statutory responsibility to assess compensation regardless of trial outcomes or the absence of a specific court recommendation.

Issues: Whether a claim for victim compensation can be denied solely on the grounds that the trial court’s judgment of acquittal did not recommend it, and whether a delay in filing the application serves as a valid ground for rejection.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 357A is a welfare-oriented provision aimed at victim rehabilitation, which functions independently of criminal conviction. Because the provision is time-neutral and imposes a mandatory, independent duty on authorities to ensure victim relief, neither the absence of an order from the trial court nor the delay in filing can be used to preclude the petitioner from her statutory entitlement.

Result: Writ petition allowed. Impugned orders set aside, and payment of the prescribed compensation amount directed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to denial of victim compensation by dlsa. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. section 357a crpc mandate for victim compensation independent of criminal trial outcome. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. right to victim compensation is not time-barred or defeated by delay. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. high court's power to grant compensation under article 226/357a crpc. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)

Heard Mr. M. Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Barman, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5, Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, appearing for the respondent No. 2 & Ms. R. S. Chowdhury, learned Standing Counsel, ASLSA, appearing for the respondent No. 3.

2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated 03.05.2019 and 19.11.2020 passed by the Secretary, DLSA, Dhubri, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for victim compensation has been rejected.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the husband of the petitioner, namely Ismail Hussain, was allegedly murdered on 15.08.2010. Accordingly, Bilasipara P.S. Case No. 410/2010 was registered. Upon completion of investigation, trial commenced before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilasipara, Dhubri in Sessions Case No. 129/2013. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned trial court acquitted the accused persons. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under:

“25. Evidence of witnesses is that they did not witness the incident and they only heard about the murder of Ismail Hussain by some unknown miscreants. Witnesses not whisper presence of accused person at place of occurrence. None of the witness even seizure witness stated that seized goods were recovered either from the, possession, house of the accused at the instance of the accused person. Seizure witnesses though admits signature on the seizure list but did not state that seized good are recovered from the place of occurrence or from the possession of accused person. It is not the evidence of prosecution that seized weapons and other good recovered at the instance of accused persons as led by and shown by accused. It is not the evidence of prosecution that any of the witnesses seen accused persons at the place of occurrence before or after the commission of the offence. None of the witnesses stated that they have seen deceased with the accused person. Last seen theory is also not coming from the evidence of P.W.'s. It is also not the evidence of P.W's that IO the case found any of the accused persons at place of occurrence. Seizure list Exbt. 2,3,4,5 clearly pointed though seized goods were found at place of occurrence but same were not recovered in presence of accused and or as shown and led by accused person. There is no piece of evidence available against the accused persons to connect their link with the murder of Ismail Hussain.

26. No doubt deceased Ismail Hussain was murdered and he succumbed to his injury. But available piece of evidence does not connect any link in between accused persons and death of Ismail Hussain. There is no chain of circumstances appearing against the accused persons to book them under prosecution charges. Prosecution evidence miserably failed to bring home the prosecution charges against the accused persons. Therefore, I came to my judicious consideration that prosecution totally failed to establish charges u/s 147/148/149/341/302 IPC against the accused persons and I hold accused Haran Ali, Abdul Kuddus @ Kuddus Ali, Amzad Ali, Abdul Kader @ Kader Ali, Nowsad Ali, Manik Ali, Janik Ali, Sanjab Ali, Sujaluddin @ Sujal Ali Abul Hussain not guilty under section 147/148/149/341/302 IPC and set at liberty. Their bail bond shall remain in force for next six month from the date of judgment u/s 437A Cr.P.C.”

4. The petitioner thereafter filed an application before the Secretary, DLSA, Dhubri seeking victim compensation, which came t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top