Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 47 (MAN)

Achung Gangmei v. State of Manipur

2019-07-31

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : M.V. Muralidaran, J. 1. The petitioner, who is the complainant in Special Trial No. 6 of 2015 pending on the file of the Learned Special Judge, Imphal West, has filed the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to direct the Special Judge to expedite and conclude the trial and to further direct the respondents to pay Rs. 5 lakhs as interim compensation to the victim viz., Apuine, considering the NALSA's Scheme for Women Victim/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, 2018. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner's granddaughter viz., Apuine, who was aged 14 years at the time of occurrence, after enjoying mid-night service at RNBA Centre Church at Tarung, was kidnapped and gang raped on the fateful day of 01.01.2014 at 1.00 a.m. (night hours) by the accused viz., Awungshi Ninglumshang @ Ashang Shimray along with Aboy Shimray in a Maruti Alto Car bearing registration No. 5/171. According to the prosecution, the accused took the victim at Nagaram and on reaching Nagaram, accused Aboy Shimray raped her in the Alto Car, while accused Ashang Shimray locked the car and stood outside watching for other people. Later victim was taken to the residence of accused Ashang Shimray at Dewlahland leaving Aboy Shimray at Nagaram and there she was taken inside the room of Ashang Shimray and raped. Based on the complaint given by the petitioner dated 2.01.2014, a case in F.I.R. No. 3(1) 2014 was registered by Lamphel Police Station under Sections 366A, 367, 376(2)(g) IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet under Section 366A, 367, 376(2)(g) IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act against the accused. The Special Court took cognizance of the offence in Special Trial No. 6 of 2015 and the same is pending disposal. 3. The petitioner has come up with the present petition by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking direction to expedite the trial of Special Trial No. 6 of 2015 stating that the proceedings of the trial is very slow and that the matter is being adjourned frequently on the request of either the State Prosecutor or the counsel for the accused. According to the petitioner, during the pendency of the trial, under the influence of political power and money, the accused Awungshi Ninglumshang @ Ashang Shimray was allowed to participate in the selection/recruitment to Manipur Police and he was selected. According to the petitioner, accused Ashang Shimray is serving as Assistant Sub Inspector under the Manipur Police Department. 4. The case of the petitioner is that she belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community and the victim is suffering and facing social stigma, agony and trauma because of the occurrence and could not recover completely from the said heinous incident till date. Further, the victim is in need of immediate interim compensation and counselling so as to rehabilitate and to return a normal life like any other normal child. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking direction to the Special Court to expedite the trial and to award interim compensation to the victim. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the complaint was lodged on 02.01.2014 and charge sheet was filed and the Special Court had taken cognizance in Special Trial No. 6 of 2015, the same was not disposed of till date and the case is getting adjourned unnecessarily. The learned counsel further submitted that the victim is in need of immediate interim compensation and as per the NALSA's Scheme, she is entitled for Rs. 5 lakhs as interim maintenance and prayed for awarding of the said sum to the minor victim. 7. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no lag on the side of the respondents in prosecuting the case and the State is ready to get along with the trial of the case. He would submit that the respondents are obliged to follow the direction, if any, given by this Court. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the materials available on record. 9. He would submit that the respondents are obliged to follow the direction, if any, given by this Court. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the materials available on record. 9. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. mainly in terms of the order dated 01.05.2018 passed by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India & others, reported in (2018) 5 SCC 651 . 10. In Alakh Alok Srivastava, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "23. It is submitted by Mr. Srivastava that in both the States, the cases are pending at the evidence stage beyond one year. We are absolutely conscious that Section 35(2) of the Act says "as far as possible". Be that as it may, regard being had to the spirit of the Act, we think it appropriate to issue the following directions: (i) The High Courts shall ensure that the cases registered under the POCSO Act are tried and disposed of by the Special Courts and the Presiding Officers of the said Courts are sensitized in the matters of child protection and psychological response. (ii) The Special Courts, as conceived, be established, is not already done, and be assigned the responsibility to deal with the cases under the POCSO Act. (iii) The instructions should be issued to the Special Courts to fast track the cases by not granting unnecessary adjournments and following the procedure laid down in the POCSO Act and thus complete the trial in a time-bound manner or within a specific time frame under the Act. (iv) The Chief Justices of the High Courts are requested to constitute a Committee of three Judges to regulate and monitor the progress of the trials under the POCSO Act. The High Courts where three Judges are not available the Chief Justices of the said courts shall constitute one Judge Committee. (v) The Director General of Police or the officer of equivalent rank of the State shall constitute a Special Task Force which shall ensure that the investigation is properly conducted and witnesses and produced on the dates fixed before the trial courts. (v) The Director General of Police or the officer of equivalent rank of the State shall constitute a Special Task Force which shall ensure that the investigation is properly conducted and witnesses and produced on the dates fixed before the trial courts. (vi) Adequate steps shall be taken by the High Courts to provide child friendly atmosphere in the Special Courts keeping in view the provisions of the POCSO Act so that the spirit of the Act is observed." 11. Thus, it is clear that cases registered under the POCSO Act are to be tried and disposed of by the Courts concerned in a time bound manner or within a specific time frame under the Act. Further, as per Section 35 of the POCSO Act, evidence of the child shall be recorded within a period of thirty days of the Special Court taking cognizance of the offence and the reason for delay, if any, shall be recorded by the Special Court. The provision of the POCSO Act further provides that the Special Court shall complete the trial, as far as possible, within a period of one year from the date of taking cognizance of the offence. In the instant case, the trial proceeding is pending since 2015. 12. On 10.04.2019, when the present petition was taken up for hearing, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, however, the learned Public Prosecutor was present. Taking note of the fact that the case is pending since 2015 before the Special Court, Imphal West, this Court called for a report from the Special Court and passed the following orders: "No representation for the petitioner. Mr. Y. Ashang, learned PP appears for the respondent. [1] Since this case has been filed by the petitioner who is the complainant, that on a complaint given to the respondent police, a case was registered in FIR No. 3(1) 2014, LPS U/s 366 A/367/376(2)(g) IPC & 4 POCSO Act in the year 2014 and thereafter a charge sheet in Spl. T. No. 6/2015 was filed by the respondent/Police in the year 2015 and the same is pending before the Special Judge, Imphal West/Court of District and Sessions Judge, Imphal West, Manipur, till date without any further progress. Therefore, the petitioner prays for early disposal of the case. T. No. 6/2015 was filed by the respondent/Police in the year 2015 and the same is pending before the Special Judge, Imphal West/Court of District and Sessions Judge, Imphal West, Manipur, till date without any further progress. Therefore, the petitioner prays for early disposal of the case. [2] On fair reading of the case papers, the petitioner has produced a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Writ Petition (C) No. 76 of 2018 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed an order on 01.05.2018 by issuing the following directions which reads in Para No. 23 of the Judgment as follows: "23. It is submitted by Mr. Srivastava that in both the States, the cases are pending at the evidence stage beyond one year. We are absolutely conscious that Section 35(2) of the Act says "as far as possible". Be that as it may, regard being had to the spirit of the Act, we think it appropriate to issue the following directions:- (i) The High Courts shall ensure that the cases registered under the POCSO Act are tried and disposed of by the Special Courts and the presiding officers of the said courts are sensitized in the matters of child protection and psychological response. (ii) The Special Courts, as conceived, be established, if not already done, and be assigned the responsibility to deal with the cases under the POCSO Act. (iii) The instructions should be issued to the Special Courts to fast tract the cases by not granting unnecessary adjournments and following the procedure laid down in the POCSO Act and thus complete the trial in a time-bound manner or within a specific time frame under the Act. (iv) The Chief Justices of the High Courts are requested to constitute a Committee of three Judges to regulate and monitor the progress of the trials under the POCSO Act. The High Courts where three Judges are not available the chief Justices of the said courts shall constitute one Judge Committee. (v) The Director General of Police or the officer of equivalent rank of the States shall constitute a Special Task Force which shall ensure that the investigation is properly conducted and witnesses are produced on the dates fixed before the trial courts. (v) The Director General of Police or the officer of equivalent rank of the States shall constitute a Special Task Force which shall ensure that the investigation is properly conducted and witnesses are produced on the dates fixed before the trial courts. (vi) Adequate steps shall be taken by the High Courts to provide child friendly atmosphere in the Special Courts keeping in view the provisions of the POCSO Act so that the spirit of the Act is observed." [3] Admittedly in this case the FIR was registered in the year 2014 and the charge sheet was filed in the year 2015. But even after the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above writ petition, the proceedings are not concluded by the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West and the same is pending for more than 3 years. [4] The provision of the POCSO Act also clearly states that cases registered under the POCSO Act should be expeditiously disposed off without any delay by the Special Courts constituted under the POCSO Act. But in this case, even after lapse of several years, why the case is not concluded by the Learned Special Judge, Imphal West. [5] Apart from this, this Court also wants a report from the Director General of Police, Manipur in respect of cases registered under the POCSO Act in the State of Manipur and the details of cases registered, charge sheeted and the pendency of the cases before the Special Courts and the Director General of Police had complied the Hon'ble Supreme Court order passed in para No. 23(v) in the above writ petition to enable this Court to comply the above direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Writ Petition (C) No. 76 of 2018. [6] Apart from this, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above writ petition also directed all the High Courts by directing the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the respective High Courts to constitute a Committee of three Judges to regulate and monitor the progress of the trials under the POCSO Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed to the High Courts that where 3 (three) Judges are not available the Chief Justices shall constitute one Judge Committee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed to the High Courts that where 3 (three) Judges are not available the Chief Justices shall constitute one Judge Committee. Therefore, this Court wants the report from the Registrar General of this Court whether the committee is constituted or not, in compliance of the order passed in the above writ petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. [7] Further, the learned Special Judge, Imphal West is also directed to file his report that why the case in Spl.T. No. 6/2015 filed under the POCSO Act is pending from 2015 onwards. [8] Therefore, I am inclined to pass the following orders. (a) The Registrar General of this Court is directed to file a report whether the Order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in WP(C) No. 76 of 2018 on 01.05.2018 was placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for complying the direction given in para 23 (iv) and whether the Committee has been constituted or not? (b) The Director General of Police, Manipur is hereby directed to file a comprehensive report that how many cases were registered under the POCSO Act and whether charge sheet were filed in all the cases and about the pendency of the cases registered under the POCSO Act in the State of Manipur and file this report on 27.05.2019 in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in Para No. 23(v). (c) The learned Special Judge, Imphal West is directed to file a report as to why the case in FIR No. 3(1), 2014, LPS U/s 366 A/367/376(2)(g) IPC & 4 POCSO Act and in Spl. T. No. 6/2015 is pending without any further progress till date. Therefore, all the above 3(three) authorities are directed to file their reports on or before 27.05.2019 before this Court. The Registry is directed to issue a copy of this order to the Registrar General of this Court, the Director General of Police, Manipur and the Special Judge, Imphal West alongwith the Xerox copy of the Judgment in Writ Petition (C) No. 76 of 2018 dated 01.05.2018 to comply the order passed by this Court today. Registry is also directed to issue copy of this order to the counsel for the petitioner as well as learned PP. Issue copy on 12.04.2019." 13. Pursuant to the direction dated 10.04.2019, the Special Judge, Imphal West, submitted her report. Registry is also directed to issue copy of this order to the counsel for the petitioner as well as learned PP. Issue copy on 12.04.2019." 13. Pursuant to the direction dated 10.04.2019, the Special Judge, Imphal West, submitted her report. The report of the learned Special Judge dated 23.05.2019 reads thus: "As directed by His Lordship, the undersigned who is working as District & Sessions Judge, Imphal West/Special Court (POCSO) have the honour to submit the following Report showing the reasons for pending the Special Trial No. 6/2015 till date. 1. That the case has been registered on 30.06.2015 before this Court having been transferred from the Court of this Special Court (POCSO), Manipur East. Witnesses were examined on 17.12.2015, 02.01.2016, 27.01.2016. Supplementary charge-sheet was filed on 01.02.2016 on which day one PW was recalled. PWs were then examined on 07.03.2016, 04.04.2016, 13.06.2016, 01.07.2016, 02.07.2016, 04.07.2016, 05.07.2016, 22.08.2016, 10.10.2016, 28.10.2016, 16.12.2016. During the aforesaid period, some of the witnesses were re-examined and some days were taken in examining some of the witnesses as their examination could not be completed on the single days. 2. That on 16.05.2017, this Court passed an order staying the further examination of witnesses vide order dated 15.05.2017 of the Hon'ble High Court passed in Cril. Revn. Petn No. 6 of 2017. The said petition was against the order of this Court allowing to examine one witness under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. On 23.02.2018, order from the Hon'ble High Court dismissing the petition of the Cril. Revn. Petn. No. 6 of 2017 was received after 9 months. Thus, the case has been posted for examination of the said witness fixing 30.04.2018. However, on 30.04.2018, an Affidavit was filed by the Ld. Counsel of the accused stating that Cril. Revn. Petn. No. 6 of 2017 was restored to the file and thus the further examination of the witness has been deferred till the decision of the Hon'ble High Court. On the next fixed day, the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the petition and thus, this case was posted for PW hearing again. Finally PW hearing was closed on 05.09.2018. The accused was examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. on 05.10.2018 and then posted for DW hearing. DW No. 1 to 6 were examined on 15.11.2018, 29.11.2018, 15.01.2019, 29.01.2019, 08.03.2019. On the next fixed day, the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the petition and thus, this case was posted for PW hearing again. Finally PW hearing was closed on 05.09.2018. The accused was examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. on 05.10.2018 and then posted for DW hearing. DW No. 1 to 6 were examined on 15.11.2018, 29.11.2018, 15.01.2019, 29.01.2019, 08.03.2019. DW No. 7 was examined on 18.05.2019 and on that day, I found that I have recorded the statement of the victim under Sect. 164 Cr.P.C. and there were many confrontations as there were improvements during the examination of the victim before the Court. Thus, I requested the Hon'ble High Court for transferring the case to any other competent Special Court (POCSO). 3. That I took the charge of the District & Sessions Court on 20.03.2019. My Lord, there are 7 District & Sessions Judges in Manipur and they are designated as Special Courts (POCSO). At present this Court being Special Court (POCSO) has 61 POCSO Trial Cases apart from other Sessions Trial cases, CBI Cases, Special Trial Cases (PC) and Civil cases. Now I am trying to fast track the POCSO cases. 4. That there were instances then the Prosecution could not produce the witnesses and there were also instances where the examination of the witness could not be completed on one day as other cases were also fixed. My Lord, as stated above 9 months was also passed having been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court. My Lord, I tender my apology for not having disposed the case as contemplated in the Act and inspite of direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. I will try to expedite all the POCSO cases. I, therefore, prayed my Lord to kindly excuse this Court for not disposing the present case within the stipulated time and also pray for giving an opportunity to fast track all the POCSO cases. I shall remain grateful to My Lord and as duty bound." 14. The Registrar General of this Court has submitted his report on 25.05.2019 and the same reads as under: "1. Vide order dated 10.04.2019 in Cril.Petn. I shall remain grateful to My Lord and as duty bound." 14. The Registrar General of this Court has submitted his report on 25.05.2019 and the same reads as under: "1. Vide order dated 10.04.2019 in Cril.Petn. No. 14 of 2019, this Hon'ble Court directed the Registrar General, High Court, Manipur to file a report as to whether the Order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in WP(C) No. 76 of 2018 on 01.05.2018 was placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for complying the direction given in Para 23(iv) and whether the Committee has been constituted or not. 2. Para 23(iv) of order dated 01.05.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP(C) No. 76 of 2018 - Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India & Ors. is reproduced herein below: "(iv) The Chief Justices of the High Courts are requested to constitute a Committee of three Judges to regulate and monitor the progress of the trials under the POCSO Act. The High Courts where three Judges are not available the Chief Justices of the said courts shall constitute one Judge Committee." 3. On 21.05.2018 the matter was placed by the Registrar (Judl), High Court of Manipur before the Hon'ble Chief Justice and his Lordship was pleased to nominate Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. Kotiswar Singh as "One Judge Committee" in terms the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 4. Vide Letters dated 23.05.2018 (Flag-A), the Registrar (Judl) intimated the Registrar General of this Court and also the Secretary General, Supreme Court of India about the constituted of the Committee with Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. Kotiswar Singh as Chairman and Registrar (Judl) as Secretary to regulate and monitor the progress of the trials under POCSO Act w.e.f. 23.05.2018. 5. After the transfer of Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. Kotiswar Singh to Gauhati High Court, all the Committees for the High Court of Manipur was re-notified vide Order No. 38 dated 12.10.2018 (Flag-B). In the reconstituted "Committee to Regulate and Monitor the Progress of the Trial under POCSO Act", Mr. Justice Kh. Nobin Singh is the new One Member Committee as shown at Sl. No. 15. 6. The Committees of the High Court of Manipur have been recently reconstituted vide Order No. 41 dated 22.05.2019 (Flag-C) upon the transfer of Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.V. Muralidaran to this Court. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kh. Justice Kh. Nobin Singh is the new One Member Committee as shown at Sl. No. 15. 6. The Committees of the High Court of Manipur have been recently reconstituted vide Order No. 41 dated 22.05.2019 (Flag-C) upon the transfer of Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.V. Muralidaran to this Court. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kh. Nobin Singh is the One Man Committee as shown at Sl. No. 14. As directed, the Report is placed before the Hon'ble Court for kind perusal." 15. The Inspector General of Police (Admn.), Manipur has submitted his comprehensive report, wherein it has been stated as under: "4. ........ Therefore, the total number of cases registered under POCSO Act in the State of Manipur as on the date of report is 485 (four hundred and eighty five). Out of these, 396 (three hundred ninety six) cases were charge sheeted and 42 (forty two) cases were returned as FR.12 (twelve) cases have been transferred and the remaining 35 (thirty five) cases are under investigation and yet to submit charge sheets. 5. That, it is humbly submitted that the Police Department of Manipur through the Special Task Force is always trying its level best for effective implementation of the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as the provision of POCSO Act at all levels/stages and will continue to do so in the days to come." 16. From the report of the Special Judge, it is seen that examination of prosecution side witnesses commenced on 17.12.2015 and finally on 05.09.2018, the evidence of prosecution side was closed. Thereafter, examination of defence side witnesses started on 05.10.2018 and on the side of the accused, six witnesses started on 05.10.2018 and on the side of the accused, six witnesses were examined and while examining the seventh witness, the learned Special Judge found that she had recorded the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and requested the High Court for transfer of the case to any other competent Special Court (POCSO). In her report, the Special Judge stated that she took charge of the District and Sessions Court/Special Court on 20.03.2019. Thus, it reveals that after 18.05.2019, the Special Judge has not taken up the case for hearing and also she tendered apology for not having disposed of the cases as contemplated under the Act as well as the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 17. Thus, it reveals that after 18.05.2019, the Special Judge has not taken up the case for hearing and also she tendered apology for not having disposed of the cases as contemplated under the Act as well as the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 17. It has been noticed from the report of the Special Judge, Imphal West that as against the order passed in Section 311 Cr.P.C. petition, Criminal Revision No. 6 of 2017 was preferred before this Court and the said Criminal Revision came to be dismissed, however, the copy of the order has not been communicated to the Special Court, Imphal West and for sending copy of the order, there is a delay of nine months. The nine months towering delay in not sending the copy of the order to the trial Court had occurred due to the Registry of this Court and such act is highly condemnable. In such view of the factual position, this Court hereby directs the Registry to issue suitable orders to the Section head to send the copy of the order to the lower Courts forthwith, without any delay. Further, the Registrar General of this Court is directed to issue a Circular to all the Unit Heads directing them not to hesitate in addressing the High Court to know the stage of the cases where stay has been granted by this Court. In the case on hand, if the order passed in the Criminal Revision No. 6 of 2017 was sent by this Court to the Special Court, Imphal West immediately, by this time, the Special Trial No. 6 of 2015 would have seen the result. 18. From the report of the learned Special Judge (POCSO) Imphal West it is clear that she sought transfer of the case in Special Trial No. 6 of 2015 to any other competent Special Court (POCSO), as she had recorded the statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Since the learned Special Judge dealing with the case had recorded Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim it is not feasible for her to deal with the case any further. Therefore this Court feels that it would be appropriate to direct the Registry to put up a Note before the Hon'ble The Chief Justice through the concerned Hon'ble Committee for orders either transferring of the case to the other competent Special Court dealing with POCSO cases or to confer power to any other District and Sessions Judge, Imphal West to deal with the case. Further, this Court is of the view that transferring of the case in Special Trial No. 6 of 2015 to some other Court as requested by the present Special Judge is not possible, as the case was received by transfer by the Special Court (POCSO), Imphal West from the file of the Special Court (POCSO) Imphal East. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that transferring of Special Trial No. 6 of 2015 to the Special Court POCSO Imphal East or any other Special Court outside Imphal West would further delay the trial of the case. Moreover, the proceedings in Special Trial No. 6 of 2015 is at the stage of closing the evidence of defence side. The aforesaid observation of this Court is purely based on the report of the Special Judge and also taking note of the fact that Special Trial No. 6 of 2015 is pending since 2015 without seeing the light of the day. 19. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that speedy trial and time bound disposal of criminal case is not only the right of the accused, but also the right of the victim under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Considering the long pendency of the case, the Special Court (POCSO), Imphal West is directed to dispose of the case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 20. As per the report of the Inspector General of Police, 35 cases are pending investigation and to be charge sheeted. The report further states that the Police Department of Manipur, through the Special Task Force, was trying its level best for effective implementation of the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the provisions of POCSO Act at all levels/stages and will continue to do so in the days to come. The report further states that the Police Department of Manipur, through the Special Task Force, was trying its level best for effective implementation of the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the provisions of POCSO Act at all levels/stages and will continue to do so in the days to come. In view of the above report, this Court directs the Police Department to follow the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the provision of POCSO Act strictly in respect of cases registered under POCSO Act. 21. Coming to the prayer for granting of interim compensation to the victim, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to undue pendency of the trial, the minor victim is suffering not only from mental trauma, agony, social ostracization, but also feels withdrawn from the society. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the victim is in need of immediate financial assistance and, therefore, a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs may be awarded as interim compensation. 22. This Court took judicial note of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gang-rape Ordered by Village Kangaroo Court in W.B., In Re, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 786 and Suresh and another v. State of Haryana, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 227 . 23. In Gang-rape Ordered by Village Kangaroo Court in W.B., In Re, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, extensively dealt with victim compensation and held as under: "22. This Court in P. Rathinam v. State of Gujarat, 1994 SCC (Crl) 1163, which pertained to rape of a tribal woman in police custody awarded an interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the State Government. Likewise, this Court, in Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, (2000) 2 SCC 465 , upheld the High Court's direction to pay Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation to the victim, who was a Bangladeshi national. Further, this Court in Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P., (2014) 4 SCC 800 , vide order dated 5.8.2013, enhanced the interim relief granted by the State Government from Rs. 2 lakhs to 10 lakhs each to two girl victims. .......... 26. The report of the Chief Secretary indicates the steps taken by the State Government including the compensation awarded. 2 lakhs to 10 lakhs each to two girl victims. .......... 26. The report of the Chief Secretary indicates the steps taken by the State Government including the compensation awarded. Nevertheless, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the victim should be given a compensation of at least Rs. 5 lakhs for rehabilitation by the State. We, accordingly, direct Respondent 1 (the State of West Bengal through the Chief Secretary) to make a payment of Rs. 5 lakhs, in addition to the already sanctioned amount of Rs. 50,000/-, within one month from today. Besides, we also have some reservation regarding the benefits being given in the name of the mother of the victim, when the victim herself is a major (i.e. aged about 20 years). Thus, in our considered view, it would be appropriate and beneficial to the victim If the compensation and other benefits are directly given to her and accordingly we order so." 24. In Suresh, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "16. We are of the view that it is the duty of the courts, on taking cognizance of a criminal offence, to ascertain whether there is tangible material to show commission of crime, whether the victim is identifiable and whether the victim of crime needs immediate financial relief. On being satisfied on an application or on its own motion, the court ought to direct grant of interim compensation, subject to final compensation being determined later. Such duty continues at every stage of a criminal case where compensation ought to be given and has not been given, irrespective of the application by the victim. At the stage of final hearing it is obligatory on the part of the court to advert to the provision and record a finding whether a case for grant of compensation has been made out and, if so, who is entitled to compensation and how much. Award of such compensation can be interim. Gravity of offence and need of victim are some of the guiding factors to be kept in mind, apart from such other factors as may be found relevant in the facts and circumstances of an individual case. ......... 20. Award of such compensation can be interim. Gravity of offence and need of victim are some of the guiding factors to be kept in mind, apart from such other factors as may be found relevant in the facts and circumstances of an individual case. ......... 20. Accordingly, while dismissing the appeal, we direct that the widow of Devender Chopra, who is the mother of the deceased Abhishek Chopra representing the family of the victim be paid interim compensation of rupees ten lakhs. It will be payable by the Haryana State Legal Services Authority within one month from the receipt of a copy of this order. If the funds are not available for the purpose with the said Authority, the State of Haryana will make such funds available within one month from the date of the receipt of a copy of this judgment and the Legal Services Authority will disburse the compensation within one month thereafter. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly." 25. As per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No. 565 of 2012, titled Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, the NALSA constituted a Committee and prepared Model Scheme and after due deliberation, the Committee finalized the Compensation Scheme for women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/other Crimes and submitted the same before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was accepted and it directed all the State Governments/Union Territory Administrations to implement the same in their respective States/Union Territories. 26. It is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions held that the National Legal Services Authority's (NALSA) Scheme for compensating the victims of sexual assault and acid attacks should be used as a guiding model by the Special Courts in awarding compensation to minor victims of sexual abuse till the Centre finalises the rules. The Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted the NALSA's "Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes-2018" and held that the guidelines would be operational across the country. Thus, as per the NALSA's Scheme, a victim of gang rape in any part of the country would get a minimum compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs and upto a maximum of Rs. 10 lakhs. 27. Thus, as per the NALSA's Scheme, a victim of gang rape in any part of the country would get a minimum compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs and upto a maximum of Rs. 10 lakhs. 27. Taking note of the gravity of the offence, severity of mental and physical harm, injury suffered by the victim and the social stigma, agony and trauma which she is facing and also the plea that the victim could not recover completely from the said Incident till date, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to direct the State to pay interim compensation of Rs. 5.00 lakhs to the victim. Thus, the State of Manipur is liable to pay interim compensation of Rs. 5.00 lakhs to the victim. 28. In view of the above discussion, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders: (a) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (b) The learned Special Judge (POCSO), Imphal West is hereby directed to dispose of the case in Special Trial No. 6 of 2015 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (c) If the Officer who had recorded Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim is still functioning as Special Judge (POCSO), Imphal West, the Registry is directed to place a note to the Hon'ble Chief Justice and/or the Hon'ble Committee, as the case may be, to confer power to any other District and Sessions Judge within the same District to deal with Special Trial No. 6 of 2015, who, in turn, shall dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of conferment. (d) The learned Special Judge (POCSO), Imphal West or the Judge to whom assigned the case is hereby directed to submit a report regarding disposal of Special Trial No. 6 of 2015 within ten days from the date of delivery of the judgment. (e) The State of Manipur is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) to the victim or petitioner, as the case may be, as interim compensation as per the NALSA's "Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes-2018" within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (e) The State of Manipur is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) to the victim or petitioner, as the case may be, as interim compensation as per the NALSA's "Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes-2018" within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (f) The Registrar General of this Court is directed to issue a Circular immediately to all the District Judges in the State of Manipur to monitor and direct the Special Courts constituted under the POCSO Act to submit periodical reports, at least once in a month, in respect of cases registered under POCSO Act pending in their Courts. (g) After the receipt of the periodical reports from the Special Courts (POCSO Act), the Registrar General of this Court is directed to place the same before the Hon'ble Committee to regulate and monitor the progress of the trial under POCSO Act and further orders and/or guidance of the Hon'ble Committee. (h) All the Special Judges In the State of Manipur designated and functioning under the POCSO Act are hereby directed to follow the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India, cited supra, and dispose of the cases within a period of one year from the date of taking cognizance of the offence and submit a report regarding disposal of the cases to the Registrar General of this High Court.