Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 754 (RAJ)

Aarti Dhobi v. State Of Rajasthan

2023-03-31

INDERJEET SINGH

body2023
ORDER : (Inderjeet Singh, J.) The petitioner, as alleged in the petition, was minor at the time of alleged incident and belongs to SC/ST category, became victim and subjected to the crime for which punishment has been prescribed under the Indian Penal Code. On being denied the financial aid by the impugned order dated 15.04.2021 passed by the respondents, the petitioner victim has approached this Court seeking financial aid as provided under clause-44(ii) of the Schedule annexed with the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules of 1995). 2. Brief facts as reflected from the material on record are that with regard to the crime committed on the victim, uncle of the victim lodged FIR bearing No.07/2017 at Police Station Renwal, Jaipur Rural for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120-B of IPC, Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act of 2012) and Section 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act of 1989). After registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced and after detailed investigation, the police found the offences, as alleged in the FIR, to be made out against the accused persons and submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons before the competent court of jurisdiction for the offences under sections 363, 366-A, 376(D), 120 of IPC and Section 5/6 of the Act of 2012 and Section 3(1)(w) & 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989. Subsequently, the Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012, District Jaipur heard the arguments and on consideration of the material on record, framed charges against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376(D) of IPC, Section 5/6 of the Act of 2012 and Section 3(2)(v) & 3-1(w) of the Act of 1989. Thereafter, the petitioner applied online to the respondents seeking relief in terms of the provisions of the Rules of 1995. The request/matter of the petitioner victim was placed before the respondent-Deputy Director, Social Justice and Empowerment Department, who vide order/recommendation dated 15.04.2021 denied to grant relief to the petitioner victim as prayed for. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the recommendation/order dated 15.04.2021. 3. The request/matter of the petitioner victim was placed before the respondent-Deputy Director, Social Justice and Empowerment Department, who vide order/recommendation dated 15.04.2021 denied to grant relief to the petitioner victim as prayed for. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the recommendation/order dated 15.04.2021. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have wrongly passed the order dated 15.04.2021. Counsel further submits that the respondents are not justified in denying the relief to the petitioner as the legislation enacted by the Legislature to provide relief to the victims in such matters, is a beneficial legislation and the petitioner victim is entitled and ought to have been granted the financial aid in terms of the provisions of the Rules of 1995. 4. Counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the respondents have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner and no case for interference by this Court is made out in the present matter. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the relevant provisions of law. 6. Since the relief sought by the petitioner, which has been denied by the respondents, relates to the provisions of Clause- 44(ii) of the Schedule annexed with the Rules of 1995, as such the same is quoted as under :- 44. [Rape, Unnatural Offences or Gang rape]. (i)....... (ii) Gang Rape [Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)] Eight lakh and twenty-five thousand rupees to the victim. Payment to be made as follows : (i) 50 per cent. After medical examination and confirmatory medical report; (ii) 25 per cent. When the charge sheet is sent to the court; (iii) 25 per cent. On conclusion of trial by the lower court. 7. A bare perusal of the above provision shows that where a victim who is subjected to the crime covered under Section 376(D) of IPC, financial aid in terms of the money shall be provided as prescribed in the aforesaid provision. In the present case, it has come on record that the victim is a minor and belongs to SC/ST category. Charges in the present matter have also been framed by the trial court as reflected from the order dated 09.11.2017. 8. In the present case, it has come on record that the victim is a minor and belongs to SC/ST category. Charges in the present matter have also been framed by the trial court as reflected from the order dated 09.11.2017. 8. The core question for consideration of this Court is "whether the respondent authority can deny the financial aid, as provided in the Rules of 1995, in absence of confirmatory medical report whereas the police agency has filed the charge-sheet and thereafter charges have also been framed by the trial court against the accused." 9. The Act of 1989 deals with not only prevention of atrocities against the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes people but also provides for the rehabilitation of the victims, upon whom such serious offences are committed, through financial aid for which Rules of 1995 have been framed and the relief has been prescribed to be granted into three different stages. 10. The purpose of providing financial aid is to grant immediate relief and support to the victim and their family. In cases of rape, it is often difficult to obtain conclusive medical evidence, specially where the victim does not report the case immediately after commission of the offence, that in the opinion of this Court cannot be a sole ground for rejection of the claim of victim seeking financial aid under the Rules of 1995. In the facts where the charge-sheet has been filed by the police agency and charges have been framed by the trial court, this Court believes that denying financial aid to the victim under the Rules of 1995 is contrary to the object of the Act & the Rules framed there-under. Thus this Court concludes as under. 11. In the facts where the charge-sheet has been filed by the police agency and charges have been framed by the trial court, this Court believes that denying financial aid to the victim under the Rules of 1995 is contrary to the object of the Act & the Rules framed there-under. Thus this Court concludes as under. 11. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition filed by the petitioner victim deserves to be allowed for the reasons; firstly the FIR, Charge-sheet as well as the order framing charges against the accused persons involves the offence under Section 376(D) of IPC; secondly the legislature considering the overall aspects in its wisdom has enacted this beneficial legislation at least to provide some financial aid to the victims of such serious offences; thirdly the denial of relief to the petitioner victim by the respondents is not sustainable under the facts and circumstances and this Court is of opinion that the petitioner victim should be awarded the financial aid of 75% in total, with the bifurcation of 50% & 25% of Rupees Eight Lakh and Twenty Five Thousand separately, in terms of Clause-(ii) of the Schedule annexed with the Rules of 1995 respectively. 12. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The recommendation/order dated 15.04.2021 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner victim is held entitled for payment of 75% of Rupees Eight Lakh and Twenty Five Thousand, both the two components of 50% & 25% to be computed separately on the aforesaid amount. Necessary exercise including payment shall be completed by the respondents within a period of two months.