Victim Compensation Schemes Under S.357A CrPC Are Prospective, Not Retrospective; Cannot Apply to Pre-2009 Crimes: Delhi High Court - 2025-08-17

Delhi HC Rules Victim Compensation Schemes Under Sec 357A CrPC are Prospective, Denies Further Payout in 1984 Riots Case

New Delhi: In a significant ruling with wide-ranging implications, the Delhi High Court has held that victim compensation schemes established under Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) apply prospectively and cannot be invoked for crimes committed before the provision was enacted in 2009. A Division Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar clarified that Section 357A created a new substantive right for victims, which cannot be applied retrospectively.

The Court delivered its verdict while deciding the issue of compensation in a suo moto criminal revision petition concerning the acquittal of two accused in a murder case during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. While the revision against the acquittal had abated due to the death of the accused, the Court examined the claim for additional compensation for the victim's family.

Case Background

The case originated from the brutal murder of Shri Avtar Singh during the 1984 riots, as witnessed by his daughter, Mrs. Baljit Kaur. The accused, Mahender Singh Manan and Ram Kumar, were acquitted by a Sessions Court in 1986. In 2017, the High Court, finding the acquittal judgment prima facie unsustainable, initiated a suo moto revision petition to re-examine the case.

However, during the pendency of the revision, both accused passed away. Consequently, the proceedings against them were dropped, leaving only the question of whether additional compensation could be granted to the victim's family under the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018 (DVCS) .

Arguments Presented

Senior Advocate Sumeet Verma, appointed as Amicus Curiae, argued forcefully that the victim’s family was entitled to compensation under the DVCS. His key contentions were: * Retrospective Application: As a beneficial legislation, the DVCS should be applied retrospectively to include incidents that occurred before its creation. * Ex-Gratia Payments: The substantial ex-gratia payments already received by the family from the government over the years should not bar them from receiving statutory compensation under the scheme. * Judicial Precedent: He cited judgments from other High Courts that had applied similar victim compensation schemes retrospectively.

Court's Legal Analysis and Ruling

The High Court meticulously analyzed the legislative history and intent behind Section 357A CrPC, which was introduced by an amendment effective December 31, 2009.

1. Victim Compensation is a Substantive, Not Procedural, Right

The core of the judgment rested on the distinction between substantive and procedural law. The bench held that before 2009, victims had no statutory right to claim compensation from the State. Section 357A CrPC created this right for the first time.

"Since Section 357A(4) of the CrPC introduces a new right, it is a substantive provision and, therefore, applies only prospectively," the Court observed.

Drawing an analogy from the Supreme Court's ruling in Mahabir & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana , which held the contemporaneously introduced victim's right to appeal (proviso to Section 372 CrPC) as prospective, the bench concluded:

"...the provisions relating to Victims and compensation thereof, would commend of the provisions being applied prospectively."

The Court cautioned that a retrospective application would "open the floodgates for all and sundry to rake up old and stale claims seeking compensation."

2. Eligibility Clause Bars Double Compensation

Even while assuming for the sake of argument that the scheme could be applied retrospectively, the Court found another legal hurdle for the complainant. It pointed to Clause 4 of the DVCS, which explicitly bars compensation if the victim has already been compensated under any other Central or State government scheme.

The complainant had filed an affidavit confirming her family had received a total of ₹11.9 lakhs over the years through various government relief packages for 1984 riot victims. This amount exceeded the maximum compensation prescribed under the DVCS.

"In view of the above and the fact that the grant of compensation under Section 357A of the CrPC is expressly barred by Clause 4 of the DVCS, where the victim has already been compensated under any other government scheme, we do not consider it appropriate to award any further sums," the Court ruled.

Final Decision and Directions

While denying further compensation in this specific case, the High Court issued a crucial direction to ensure that no eligible 1984 riot victim is left out. The bench directed the concerned government authorities to give wide publicity and invite claims from victims who have not yet received compensation under the various existing schemes. It set a timeline of sixteen weeks for verification of such claims and a further eight weeks for disbursal of funds.

The Court disposed of the petition, placing on record its appreciation for the assistance provided by Amicus Curiae Sumeet Verma and Senior Advocate H.S. Phoolka.