JUDGMENT 1. The 1st petitioner is the father of the 2nd petitioner. They have come up with this Writ Petition seeking a Mandamus directing the first respondent to pay a sum of Rs.7 Lakhs as compensation on the allegation that one Lakshmi (daughter of the 1st petitioner and sister of the 2nd petitioner) was raped and murdered by the respondents 2 to 6 for which, according to the petitioners, the State is liable to pay compensation. 2. The facts leading to this Writ Petition are as follows: i) The deceased Lakshmi was residing with the petitioners at 2/1 Thachar Street, Kalamarudur, Ulundurpet Taluk. One K.Srinivasan, a Homeopathy Doctor by profession was residing in a house opposite to the house of the petitioners. Mr.Srinivasan had a son by name Arul. The 2nd respondent herein is the son-in-law of Mr.Srinivasan. During the year 1991, Ms.Lakshmi informed the petitioners that she was eve-teased by the son of Srinivasan, namely, Arul. In this regard, the 1st petitioner made a complaint to the respondents 7 and 8 herein who were the then Sub-Inspector and Inspector of Police respectively of Thirunavalur Police Station and Ulundurpet Police Station respectively. But no action was taken on the said complaint. (ii) While so, it is further alleged that on 21.2.1991, Arul gave a letter of love to Lakshmi and when she refused, he abused her in filthy language and also made an attempt to outrage her modesty. Lakshmi protested by throwing a chappal aiming at Arul. But, unfortunately, the chappal fell on Srinivasan who was standing by the side. Enraged over the same, Srinivasan allegedly came to the house of the petitioners on 20.2.1991 and threatened the 1st petitioner of dire consequences. Similar attempts happened on 21.2.1991 also. Therefore, he made a complaint to the 7th respondent. (iii) But to the contrary, Srinivasan made a complaint to the 7th respondent upon which a case was registered against the first petitioner and his family members in Crime No.112/1991 on 21.2.1991 at 6.30 p.m. It is further alleged that in connection with the said case, the petitioners were taken to the Thirunavallur Police Station by the 2nd respondent and detained. Thereafter, the 7th respondent had instructed Srinivasan, the 2nd respondent herein, to bring Lakshmi to the Police Station. Thereafter, the 7th respondent had instructed Srinivasan, the 2nd respondent herein, to bring Lakshmi to the Police Station. It is the further allegation that accordingly, the 2nd respondent with his friends, went to the threshing floor on 21.8.1991 at 8.00 p.m. where Lakshmi was hiding. At that place, on finding Lakshmi, they took her to the Kalamarudur Asari graveyard and committed rape and also murdered her. Thereafter, with a view to cover up the whole episode, they brought the dead body to the house of Srinivasan, poured kerosene and set fire to the same. Thus, they made it appear as though it is a case of suicide. (iv) In respect of the said occurrence, a case was registered on the complaint of the 1st petitioner in Cr.No.115 of 1991. During investigation by the 8th respondent, inquest was conducted and body was sent for postmortem. Finally, on completing the investigation, it is alleged that the 8th respondent referred the case as "mistake of fact". The 1st petitioner was not satisfied with the same. Therefore, he filed a written complaint to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram. On such complaint, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the C.B.C.I.D. Police to hold thorough investigation into the whole occurrence. Accordingly, the CBCID police took up the investigation and finally laid charge sheet against the respondents 2 to 8 herein. According to the charge sheet, the respondents 2 to 4 herein had committed offences punishable under Sections 354, 302 read with 34 of IPC, the respondents 5 and 6 had committed offences punishable under Sections 366, 354 and 302 read with 34 of IPC and the respondents 7 and 8 had committed offences punishable under Sections 201, 217 and 218 of IPC. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ulundurpet took cognizance on the final report on 5.3.2000. On a direction issued by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.211/2000 dated 10.1.2000, the committal proceeding was expedited and the case was also committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. So far as the case in Cr.No.112 of 1991 registered against the petitioners is concerned, a charge sheet was laid in C.C.No.105 of 1991 and the same ended in acquittal as per the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ulundurpet dated 22.6.1995. (v) Subsequently, the case was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Villupuram in S.C.No.262 of 2001 in which the respondents 2 to 8 were the accused. (v) Subsequently, the case was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Villupuram in S.C.No.262 of 2001 in which the respondents 2 to 8 were the accused. Before the trial court, as many as 36 witnesses were examined, 52 documents were proved and two number of material objects were also marked. Having considered the same, the trial court by judgment dated 30.04.2002 acquitted all the accused in the case. (vi) Aggrieved over the same, the State of Tamil Nadu preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.200 of 2003 before this Court. The petitioners also filed a revision in Crl.R.C.No.2094 of 2002. Having considered all the above, a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 17.7.2006 dismissed the appeal as well as the revision holding that the prosecution had not proved the charges beyond reasonable doubts. Thus, the trial court finding of acquittal was confirmed. (vii) In the meanwhile, the petitioners filed this Writ Petition seeking compensation for the loss sustained by them on account of the alleged rape and murder committed on Lakshmi by the accused 2 to 6 which was allegedly attempted to be covered up by the respondents 7 and 8. 3. In this Writ Petition, one M/s.A,.Rahul and R.Srinivasan are the counsel on record. When the mater came up for hearing on several days, there was no representation for the petitioners. Therefore, on 12.8.2011, this Court recorded the absence of the counsel for the petitioners and however, with a view to provide legal assistance to the petitioners, appointed Mrs.P.Uma as Amicus Curiea to prosecute this writ petition. Accordingly, the learned Counsel has collected the papers and has further submitted typed set of papers and also argued the case effectively. 4. Today i.e. on 18.6.2013, when the case came up for hearing before me, again, there was no representation for the petitioners by the Counsel on record. I heard Mrs.P.Uma, Amicus Curiea and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent. There has been no representation for the respondents 2 to 8 also. I have carefully gone through the records. 5. The learned Amicus Curiea by taking me through the judgment of the trial court as well as the High Court would contend that acquittal had been recorded by applying the principle of benefit of doubt to the accused and it does not mean that there was no rape or murder on Lakshmi. I have carefully gone through the records. 5. The learned Amicus Curiea by taking me through the judgment of the trial court as well as the High Court would contend that acquittal had been recorded by applying the principle of benefit of doubt to the accused and it does not mean that there was no rape or murder on Lakshmi. According to her, the State had not prosecuted the matter properly so as to secure conviction for the accused who are the real culprits, it is contended. At any rate, according to the Amicus Curiea, since it is the duty of the State to protect the citizens of this country and since the State has got constitutional obligation to protect the life and liberty, the State is liable to pay compensation because the precious lief of one Lakshmi was lost at the instance of the respondents 2 to 6 who had committed merciless rape and murder. Thus, according to the Amicus Curiea, the State is liable to pay compensation. 6. But the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the 1st respondent, would contend that it is not available for this Court to reappreciate the findings of the trial court as well as the Division Bench of this Court who have categorically held that the prosecution had failed to prove both rape and murder committed on Lakshmi. The learned Special Government Pleader, by taking me through the judgment of the trial court as well as this Court, would point out that the medical evidence in this case would go to show that the theory propounded by the prosecution that the deceased was raped, murdered, the dead body was transported to a distance place where it was laid and set on fire cannot be true. The learned Special Government Pleader, referring to the Doctor's opinion regarding the nature of injuries, would submit that it is possible that the deceased would have been standing while she was set on fire. Therefore, according to the learned Special Government Pleader, there are materials to infer that the deceased would have committed suicide. At any rate, when this Court has given a categorical finding that the rape and murder had not been proved, question of granting compensation does not arise, he contended. Therefore, according to the learned Special Government Pleader, there are materials to infer that the deceased would have committed suicide. At any rate, when this Court has given a categorical finding that the rape and murder had not been proved, question of granting compensation does not arise, he contended. The learned Special Government Pleader would also submit that in any event, since there are lot of disputed questions of fact involved in this Writ Petition, the Writ Petition is not maintainable as it is far beyond the scope of this Court to resolve these factual disputes. For these reasons, the learned Special Government Pleader would pray for dismissal of the present writ petition. 7. I have considered the above submissions and I have also gone through the judgment of the trial court as well as the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. 8. A perusal of the above judgments would go to show that the prosecution had failed to prove that the respondents 2 to 6 have committed rape and murder on deceased Lakshmi. The Courts have also held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the respondents 7 and 8 had attempted to cover up the whole episode. Despite such findings which have been arrived at by applying the principles of benefit of doubt in favour of the accused, it is open for the petitioners to approach the civil court where the standard of proof is totally different and not the same as beyond reasonable doubt. It would have been available for the petitioner to prove before the civil court that there were rape and murder or any other harm caused to Lakshmi which resulted in huge loss to the petitioners. In essence, I would like to state that as of now, there are lot of disputed questions of fact, such as, whether there was any rape, whether there was any murder and whether there was any attempt to cover up the same etc. These disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into by this Court as it is far beyond the scope of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It would have been appropriate for the petitioners to have approached the civil court where they would have been in better position to prove, by let in evidence, the disputed questions of fact. It would have been appropriate for the petitioners to have approached the civil court where they would have been in better position to prove, by let in evidence, the disputed questions of fact. For the reasons best known to the petitioners, they have chosen to approach this Court instead of approaching the civil court. For a moment, I am not inclined to say that in exercise of the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot order for payment of compensation at all. I only say that in a case where the facts which are the foundations for the claim are in dispute, it is not possible for this Court to order for compensation. If it is a case, where there are no disputed questions of fact and the court has materials to find that the State had failed in its constitutional obligation to protect the life and liberty of a citizen, certainly, this Court would not hesitate to order for compensation. But, in this case, the very allegation that the deceased Lakshmi was raped and murdered is in doubt. From the medical evidence, it could be seen that the deceased would have committed suicide while standing. If it is a case of suicide, question of granting compensation does not arise. When this serious dispute regarding an important question of fact is involved, I say that it is not possible for this Court to order for compensation. 9. Before parting with this case, I would like to refer Section 357-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure which has been introduced by means of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (5 of 2009) which has come into force w.e.f. 31.12.2009 which reads as follows: "357-A. Victim Compensation Scheme-(1) Every State Government in co-ordination with the Central Government shall prepare a scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation to the victim or his dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation." 10. A cursory glance through subsection (1) of Section 357-A would make it undoubtedly clear that it is the obligation of the State Government, in coordination with the Central Government, to prepare a scheme for the purpose of granting compensation to the victims of crimes. A cursory glance through subsection (1) of Section 357-A would make it undoubtedly clear that it is the obligation of the State Government, in coordination with the Central Government, to prepare a scheme for the purpose of granting compensation to the victims of crimes. If there is any such scheme framed and brought into force, then, as provided in the said provision, even if the case ends in acquittal or the accused are discharged, the victim will be entitled for compensation as a measure of rehabilitation. Though this provision came into force w.e.f. 31.12.2009 in this State, the said victim compensation scheme has not been prepared and brought into force. As a result, in this State, the object for which the Section 357-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was brought into force could not be implemented. No court and no Legal Services Authority in the State is in a position to recommend for compensation even in cases where the victims deserve such compensation as a measure of rehabilitation. This Court is informed that after the introduction of the said provision, nine State Governments have already introduced appropriate schemes and they are in force. 11. When this was brought to the notice of Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian, the learned Additional Advocate General, he took time to get instructions from the Government. Subsequently, Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian, the learned Additional Advocate General produced a letter in Letter No.39176/Pol.12/2013-1 dated 6.6.2013 from the Special Secretary to Government, Home (Pol.12) Department addressed to him wherein the Special Secretary has stated as follows: "I am directed to invite your attention to the letter cited and to State that the matter relating to approval of the Victim Compensation Scheme by the State Government for the victims of crimes as per the new provision of Section 357-A in the Cr.P.C. following the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its order dated 11.2.2011 in W.P. (Criminal) No.129 of 2006 in the case of Laxmi (Minor) through her father Vs. Union of India is under active consideration of Government. The State Government is in the process of framing a victim compensation scheme as per section 357-A of Cr.P.C. which will be notified within 45 days. Union of India is under active consideration of Government. The State Government is in the process of framing a victim compensation scheme as per section 357-A of Cr.P.C. which will be notified within 45 days. In this connection, I am to state that since the case in W.P.No.13370/2001 filed by Thiru Govindasamy and another against the State of Tami Nadu (Home Department) and 4 others before the Hon'ble High Court, Madras, is posted for hearing on 10.6.2013, I am to request you to appraise the above position to the Hon'ble High Court." I hope, that the Government will take up the issue with concern, bestow its attention into the laudable object for which the provision has been brought into and prepare a scheme within 45 days as has been stated in the letter cited supra. 12. I have already stated, if there is any Scheme under Section 357(A) of the Cr.P.C., it would enable the criminal courts as well as the Legal Services Authorities to recommend for payment of compensation as per the scheme. It is needless to point out that in the absence of any such scheme, the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be doubted at all for ordering compensation in an appropriate case. Though this power is available to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in this case, I am not inclined to order for payment of compensation because there are lot of disputed questions of fact involved in this case which cannot be resolved in this Writ Petition. 13. In view of all the above, the Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed leaving it open for the petitioners to work out their remedy elsewhere in accordance with law. No costs. 14. Before parting with this Writ Petition, I place on record the excellent services rendered by Mrs.Uma, the learned Counsel who was appointed as Amicus Curiea by this Court.