Saibaj Noormohammad v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., Citation: 2024 (SC) 860
Facts: The facts are that the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376-D, 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (‘POCSO Act’ for short) and sentenced to suffer twenty years imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. For the offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, the appellant was sentenced to undergo ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,500/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed, the appellant has preferred Criminal Appeal before the High Court. In the said appeal, Interim Application was filed seeking suspension of sentence and bail and the said application has been dismissed. Hence, this appeal.(mention about the victim compensation part from the facts)
Issue:Whether Victim Compensation In Cases Of Sexual Offences Against Minors And Women should be given at the discretion of the court?
Observation: The Supreme Court mandated that, in cases involving bodily harm, especially in sexual assault cases involving minors or women, Sessions Courts should order victim compensation under Section 357-A of the CrPC(396 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The Court observed that the lack of a compensation order by the Sessions Court delays victims' benefits. Further, in the current case, the Court recommended that the High Court consider granting interim compensation to the victim under Rule 7 of the POCSO Rules, 2012, and Rule 9 of the POCSO Rules, 2020.
