Victim Turning Hostile in SC/ST Act Case Forfeits Right to Compensation: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Indore: The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, has held that a person who alleges an atrocity under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is not entitled to compensation if they turn hostile during the trial, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

The bench of Justice Pranay Verma dismissed a writ petition filed by a woman seeking the full relief amount after she had turned hostile in the gang-rape case she had initiated. The Court observed that compensation under the Act is intrinsically linked to the victim's participation in the prosecution, and turning hostile negates the very foundation of being a "victim of atrocity."

Background of the Case

The petitioner, a member of the SC/ST community, had filed an FIR in 2020 alleging offences including gang rape under Section 376-D of the IPC and relevant sections of the SC/ST Act. Following the registration of the case and filing of the chargesheet, the Tribal Welfare Department disbursed a partial compensation of ₹2,06,250 to her account, as per the staged payment schedule under the SC/ST Rules, 1995.

However, during the trial, the petitioner turned hostile and did not support the prosecution's case, which resulted in the acquittal of all the accused. Subsequently, she approached the High Court seeking the remaining balance of the total prescribed relief amount of ₹8,25,000.

Court's Rationale: Hostility Nullifies 'Victim' Status

Justice Verma, in a detailed order, rejected the petitioner's claim, establishing that the right to compensation is not absolute and is contingent upon the victim's role in the pursuit of justice.

The Court reasoned that the compensation is meant for a "victim of atrocity." When the trial concludes with an acquittal because the complainant herself resiles from her statement, it implies that no atrocity was committed.

> "Once the petitioner had turned hostile before the lower Court and had not supported the prosecution case and the trial has ended in acquittal of the accused meaning thereby that no gang rape had been committed upon the petitioner, she would no longer fall within the definition of a 'victim of atrocity' as provided under Sub Rule (4) of Rule 12 of Rules, 1995," the Court stated.

Compensation is to Facilitate Justice, Not an End in Itself

The judgment emphasized that the legislative intent behind the compensation scheme is to support victims throughout the arduous legal process. It is not a standalone benefit but a means to facilitate justice.

The Court observed that the petitioner turning hostile was "akin to settling the matter with the accused," which "disentitles the victim to claim any compensation."

> "The intent and object behind Rule 12 of the Rules, 1995 is to support victims during the prosecution of offences under the Act. When the prosecution is abandoned due to the victim turning hostile the foundational premise for awarding compensation no longer exists," the order read.

Citing Precedents and Recommending Recovery

The High Court drew support from a 2024 Delhi High Court decision in Balbeer Meena V/s State (NCT) of Delhi , which had relied on an Allahabad High Court judgment. The Court quoted the Allahabad High Court's poignant observation:

> "We are living in a Welfare State but surely not in a Charitable State... This is the hard-earned money of innocent tax-payers and any atrocities against the victims cannot be exploited to earn and enjoy the money from the State Government even when there is compromise between them."

In a crucial forward-looking direction, Justice Verma highlighted the principle of restitution and suggested that the state should not be compelled to pay when the purpose of the law is defeated. The Court went a step further, recommending that the government should consider creating a legal framework to recover compensation already paid in such instances.

Final Verdict

Finding no merit in the petition, the Court dismissed it, concluding that it would not be justifiable to direct the payment of any further compensation. This judgment sets a strong precedent, clarifying that the benefits under the SC/ST Act are tied to the genuine pursuit of justice and cannot be claimed if the complainant herself undermines the prosecution.