In a strongly worded order, the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur on October 28, 2025, quashed the denial of compensation to a minor rape survivor and directed the lower court to reconsider her plea afresh under the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011, and Rule 9 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Rules, 2020.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, while hearing the victim’s revision petition, observed that rejecting compensation on the mere ground that the minor had not furnished her 'source of income' details was 'untenable and insensitive'.
Background
The case arose from a shocking incident where the accused, identified as 'PV', was convicted for sexually assaulting a minor girl in Jaipur. He was sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment under Sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act.
During the trial, the victim’s family had applied for interim compensation, which remained undecided. Later, when the final compensation plea was submitted, the Special POCSO Court dismissed it on a technical ground - that the girl had not provided proof of income or documents related to school fee payments.
The High Court took a dim view of this reasoning, calling it contrary to the spirit of victim compensation laws meant to "restore dignity and provide solace to the survivor of such dehumanizing crimes."
Court's Observations
Justice Dhand began his order with a powerful statement:
"The crime of rape can be regarded as the highest form of torture inflicted upon womanhood… It is not merely a sexual offence but an act of aggression aimed at degrading and humiliating the woman."
He emphasized that rape, especially when committed against a minor, is an "affront to human dignity" and must be dealt with utmost judicial sensitivity.
The judge pointed out that the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011, and the 2023 Women Victim Compensation Scheme clearly entitle survivors to financial aid for rehabilitation. Under these schemes, compensation amounts range from ₹3 lakh to ₹7 lakh in cases of rape, depending on severity and circumstances.
Citing precedents such as Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das (2000) and Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh (1988), Justice Dhand reminded that the principle of victim compensation has long been recognized by Indian courts as part of the State’s obligation to uphold citizens’ fundamental rights.
"Modern victimology acknowledges that victims of rape must have access to mechanisms of reparation or compensation to help reduce their continuing suffering and trauma," the bench observed.
The Court also referred to the Malimath Committee Report, which urged statutory recognition for victims’ rights and State responsibility to compensate even in cases where the offender is not traced or convicted.
Legal Context Explained
The Court traced the evolution of victim compensation laws in India. Initially, Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) permitted courts to grant compensation only from fines imposed on the offender. This changed after the 154th Law Commission Report, leading to the addition of Section 357A, which made compensation a direct obligation of the State - even when the accused is acquitted or untraceable.
Justice Dhand further referred to the Kerala High Court’s 2020 judgment (District Collector v. District Legal Service Authority) which classified Section 357A as “substantive law” that creates an enforceable right for victims to seek compensation.
"The law cannot deny relief merely because the trial is over or because the victim is a student with no income," the Court remarked, echoing the humanitarian approach adopted by other High Courts.
Decision
Concluding the 18-page order, the Rajasthan High Court set aside the POCSO court’s rejection and remitted the matter for reconsideration within six weeks. The Special Judge was directed to freshly evaluate the victim’s application
"in terms of Rule 9 of the POCSO Rules, 2020, and the Victim Compensation Scheme of 2011."
Alternatively, the Court allowed the petitioner to approach the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) directly with a formal application under the 2011 Scheme, along with a copy of the convict’s judgment. The DLSA has been asked to decide promptly in accordance with law.
Before parting, Justice Dhand issued a practical clarification:
"The petitioner shall not submit two separate applications before both the Special Judge and DLSA simultaneously. She must choose either platform for redress."
With this, the High Court restored the survivor’s hope for due compensation and reaffirmed the judiciary’s commitment to treating sexual assault survivors with compassion rather than bureaucratic rigidity.
Case Title: Victim vs. State of Rajasthan
Case Number: 1920 of 2025
Date of Order: 28 October 2025
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Dharmendra Choudhary
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Choudhary (Government Advocate-cum-AAG)
with Mr. Amit Punia (Additional Government Advocate/ Public Prosecutor)
