Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a resident of Mumbai, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the State of Maharashtra to grant her compensation by treating her burn injuries caused by her husband pouring corrosive substance on her at par with victims of acid attack under the Manodhairya Compensation Scheme. She also sought further compensation for additional medical treatment. She married Nityanand Jagan Shetty on 22.04.2005 and had two sons. On 24.11.2010, at about 5:00 a.m., while she was sleeping, her husband removed the bedsheet from her face and poured boiling inflammable corrosive substance on her face and body. She suffered 70% to 80% superficial to deep burns. Neighbours rushed her to Bhagwati Hospital, Borivali, and later she was admitted to Eric Kharas Burns Research Unit, Masina Hospital. She spent more than Rs.5,00,000 on treatment and required further surgeries for damaged outer ears, sensitive skin, missing eyebrows, and damaged lips. An FIR was registered at Charkop Police Station, and Sessions Case No.33 of 2011 was registered in the Court of Sessions, Borivali Division, Dindoshi. The husband was charged under Sections 307 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. On 24.11.2011, he was convicted and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine; out of the fine amount, Rs.20,000 was directed to be paid as compensation. On appeal, the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.92 of 2012 maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone on 17.06.2015, noting the petitioner's wish to forgive her husband and stay with him due to socio-economic conditions. The legal issues before the court were whether the petitioner, as a victim of corrosive substance burns, was entitled to compensation under the Manodhairya Compensation Scheme at par with acid attack victims, whether the scheme applied retrospectively to an incident before its effective date, and the state's duty under Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner's counsel argued that her injuries should be treated at par with acid attack victims and that she required funds for further surgeries. The State, through an affidavit, contended that Government Resolution dated 30.12.2017 superseded the earlier resolution, the scheme was implemented on 21.10.2013, benefits were not applicable retrospectively, and the incident occurred on 24.11.2010; therefore, the petitioner was not entitled, and she should approach the District Legal Services Authority. The court referred to Section 357A Cr.P.C., inserted with effect from 31.12.2009, which requires every state government to prepare a scheme for providing funds for compensation to victims, and Section 2(wa) defining 'victim'. It discussed Suresh v. State of Haryana, (2015) 2 SCC 227, where the Supreme Court held that courts must consider compensation and grant interim compensation at every stage of a criminal case and that arbitrary low limits are not in keeping with the object of the legislation. The extracted text ends before the final operative order, so the final decision of the High Court on the specific prayers is not mentioned in the available text.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Victim Compensation - Section 357A Cr.P.C. Mandates State to Frame Scheme and Courts to Award Compensation - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 357A, 2(wa), 357 - The petitioner, a victim of corrosive substance burns, sought compensation under the Manodhairya Compensation Scheme. The court noted that Section 357A was inserted with effect from 31.12.2009 and requires every state government to prepare a scheme for providing funds for compensation to victims who have suffered loss or injury and require rehabilitation. The court referred to Suresh v. State of Haryana, (2015) 2 SCC 227, which held that courts have a duty to grant interim compensation and to consider compensation at final hearing, and that arbitrary low limits are contrary to the legislative object. Held that the state's obligation under Section 357A is to ensure victim rehabilitation irrespective of the accused's conviction status. (Paras 9-10.1) B) Sentencing - Criminal Appeal - Reduction of Sentence on Victim's Pardon - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 307, 201 - The husband was convicted under Sections 307 and 201 IPC for pouring boiling corrosive substance on the petitioner and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine. On appeal, the High Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone on 17.06.2015, noting that the petitioner expressed a desire to forgive her husband and stay with him due to socio-economic conditions. Held that conviction under Section 307 and 201 IPC was sustainable but sentence could be reduced in the peculiar circumstances of the victim's pardon. (Paras 4-5) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Petition - Article 226 and Retrospective Application of Victim Compensation Scheme - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a direction to the State to grant compensation under the Manodhairya Compensation Scheme, treating her burns at par with acid attack victims. The State contended that the scheme was not applicable retrospectively as the incident occurred on 24.11.2010, before the scheme's implementation on 21.10.2013, and that new claims were transferred to the District Legal Services Authority. The court considered the State's objection regarding non-retrospective application and examined the applicability of the scheme in light of Section 357A Cr.P.C. and the Supreme Court's decision in Suresh v. State of Haryana. (Paras 2, 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a victim of burn injuries caused by corrosive substance is entitled to compensation under the Manodhairya Compensation Scheme at par with acid attack victims; whether the scheme applies retrospectively to incidents before its effective date; whether the State has a statutory duty under Section 357A Cr.P.C. to provide rehabilitation and compensation to such victims
Law Points
- Section 357A CrPC mandates every state government to prepare a scheme for providing funds for compensation to victims of crime who have suffered loss or injury and require rehabilitation
- the court has a duty to grant interim compensation and to consider compensation at final hearing
- arbitrary low limits of compensation are contrary to the object of the legislation
- victim compensation schemes should be interpreted in light of the rehabilitation objective of Section 357A
- a victim of corrosive substance burns may be entitled to be treated at par with acid attack victims under the Manodhairya Compensation Scheme
