The Madhya Pradesh High Court directed a Scheduled Tribe rape survivor seeking compensation under the SC/ST Act to file an affidavit before receiving payment. The Court said public funds cannot be misused and required assurance that she would not compromise or turn hostile.
Noting that money disbursed as compensation under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is paid from the public exchequer and should not be misused, the Madhya Pradesh High Court directed a Scheduled Tribe rape survivor to file an affidavit. The affidavit had to state that she would not turn hostile or enter into any compromise with the accused before receiving the compensation contemplated under the law.
Justice Vishal Mishra passed the order while dealing with a petition moved by the victim for release of compensation she claimed to be entitled to under Clause 44(i) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. Advocate R.P. Mishra appeared for the petitioner, and Panel Lawyer Jubin Prasad represented the State.
The victim sought release of 75% of the total compensation of Rs 5 lakh prescribed under the Rules. She stated that an FIR was lodged at Khamariya Police Station, Jabalpur district, in September 2022, for offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, along with offences under Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. A chargesheet was filed before the trial court in December 2022.
The petitioner argued that under Clause 44(i), victims of such offences are entitled to compensation in stages. She submitted that since the chargesheet had already been filed, she was entitled to receive 75% of the compensation. She claimed that although she was eligible, only Rs 75,000 had been paid, and her request for the remaining amount had not been considered by the authorities.
Opposing the prayer, the State contended that in multiple cases victims accept compensation and later either compromise with the accused or turn hostile during trial, which then leads to acquittals. The State therefore submitted that compensation should be released only after the victim undertakes that she will continue supporting the prosecution and will not enter into any compromise with the accused. It also argued that if the undertaking is violated, the compensation amount should be returned to the government since it is funded from public money.
After perusing the record, the Court observed that the FIR and chargesheet were undisputed and that the alleged offences attract Clause 44(i) of the Rules, which provides for compensation of Rs 5 lakh to be paid in stages during the course of the criminal proceedings.
Taking note of the State’s concern about misuse, the Court remarked that the compensation paid to victims is sourced from public resources and emphasised:
“The public exchequer cannot be misused for the purpose of compliance of provisions of Rules, 1995.”
On this basis, Justice Mishra directed the petitioner to submit an affidavit to the concerned authorities affirming that she would not compromise with the accused or turn hostile before the trial court, and that she would contest the criminal case initiated on her complaint. The Court also directed that no compensation amount would be disbursed unless such an affidavit is filed.
The Court further ordered that if the affidavit is submitted within 15 days, the authorities must consider the application and release the admissible benefits within 30 days thereafter. Importantly, the Court held that if the victim later turns hostile, the compensation received would have to be refunded to the State within 30 days from the trial court’s judgment. If she fails to repay, the authorities would be entitled to recover the amount in accordance with law.
The Court added that if the victim turns hostile or enters into a compromise, the trial court may consider taking cognisance against the victim for allegedly filing a false and frivolous case against the accused.
With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of.
Case Title: Victim v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others