SC/ST Act | No Compensation In Cases Where Victims Turn Hostile And Amicably Settle With Accused: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, on Monday (December 1), held that compensation cannot be granted under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, when the victim turns hostile and amicably settles with the accused. 

The bench of Justice Pranay Verma emphasized that the Act of 1989 was intended to deter atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Tribe and Caste by ensuring that offenders are prosecuted and victims are supported throughout the legal process.

However, granting compensation when the petitioner has settled with the accused would defeat the purpose of the law, as the scheme was intended to support the pursuit of justice, not allow the unjust enrichment at the expense of the State.

The bench observed; 

"Compensation serves as a means to facilitate justice, not as an end in itself. In situation where the victim herself turns hostile and thus effectively amicably settles the matter with the accused, the foundational premise of victimization under the Act is effectively negated. Awarding compensation in such scenarios would be contrary to the spirit of law". 

The bench further observed; 

"The principle of restitution dictates that one should not be unjustly enriched at the expense of another. The State should not be compelled to disburse funds when the intended purpose of supporting a victim through prosecution is no longer applicable". 

A petition was filed by the victim, praying for a direction to pay the relief amount to the victim as per the 1989 Act. An incident took place on April 14, 2020, with offences punishable under the offences where the individual commits rape while in the course of committing another crime (Section 450), wrongful confinement (Section 342), rape (Section 376), Gang rape (Section 376-D), and criminal intimidation (Section 506). 

Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the Tribal Welfare Department transferred ₹2,06,250 to the petitioner's account, reflecting only a part of the total entitled relief amount under the Act. 

Upon trial, the final judgment has already been passed in the case, and thus the proceedings stand concluded. The petitioner, however, was not granted the entire amount that ought to have been granted to her under the Act. 

The petitioner's claim was based on Rule 12(4) of the Rules, 1995, which provides for relief in cash or kind or both to the victim of an atrocity. Per the provisions, since the offence registered on the petitioner's complaint was under Section 376-D of the IPC, an amount of ₹8,25,000 was awardable to her, out of which 50% of the payment was to be made after medical examination, 25% when the chargesheet was sent to the court and 25% upon conclusion of the trial by the lower court. 

In this case, no medical report was filed by the petitioner, and therefore, she was not entitled to the award of 50% amount of the compensation. In the trial, which was held upon the report of the petitioner, she appeared before the lower court but turned hostile and did not support the prosecution's case. 

The bench noted that if the petitioner had turned herself hostile and not supported the prosecution's case, and eventually if it had been held that the accused had not committed the alleged offence, then the aforesaid provision as regard to grant of relief could not be applicable. 

"The amount is to be paid to a 'victim of atrocity'. Once the petitioner had turned hostile before the lower Court and had not supported the prosecution case and the trial has ended in acquittal of the accused meaning thereby that no gang rape had been committed upon the petitioner, she would no longer fall within the definition of a "victim of atrocity " as provided under Sub Rule (4) of Rule 12 of Rules, 1995. She is hence not entitled for award of any relief to her as provided under the Rules, 1995", the bench observed. 

The bench noted that due to the petitioner turning hostile, the FIR upon which the entire claim was founded was deemed to be false, and the accused was acquitted. This substantially undermined the petitioner's right to seek further compensation. 

The court noted that the compensation under the Act was contingent upon the prosecution of offences and the victim's active participation in the legal process to bring offenders to justice. But when a victim of an atrocity under the SC/ST Act resiled the complaint and turns hostile during the trial, the same disentitles the victim to the claim of compensation. 

Additionally, the court noted that if any compensation has been received, it must be returned to the State Government. 

"The intent and object behind Rule 12 of the Rules, 1995 is to support victims during the prosecution of offences under the Act. When the prosecution is abandoned due to the victim turning hostile the foundational premise for awarding compensation no longer exists", the bench highlighted. 

The court noted that in the present case, the prosecution against the accused has ended in their acquittal on account of the petitioner not supporting the prosecution's case. In such circumstances, the court noted that it would not be justifiable for this court to direct payment of any amount of compensation to the petitioner. 

The case was thus dismissed. 

Case Title: Victim X v State of Madhya Pradesh [writ Petition 43325 of 2025] 

For Petitioner: Advocate Kirtee Agrawal

For State: Government Advocate Rajwardhan Gawde

Click here to read/download the Order