News Updates

Gujarat HC Rejects State's Appeal Against 3 Lakh Compensation Payment To 15 YO Rape Victim [Read Order]

Apoorva Mandhani
15 Jun 2018 5:33 AM GMT
Gujarat HC Rejects State
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday rejected the State's revision application against a lower Court order directing payment of Rs. 3 lakh as compensation to a 15-year-old rape survivor from Gir Somnath district.

The minor girl was reportedly raped in 2015. The perpetrator was convicted in March 2017 by a Special Court, which sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). The Court had also ordered the State to pay her Rs. 3 lakhs as compensation.

As per an earlier order, the State had challenged the grant of 3 lakhs to the girl relying on a circular passed by it in January 2016, wherein it had set a ceiling of Rs. 1 lakh on compensation amount to rape survivors in the State.

The minor girl had, however, relied on a circular issued by the Centre in July 2016, setting Rs. 3 lakhs as the minimum compensation amount in such cases. The Court had then directed the State to pay Rs. 1 lakh to the girl during the pendency of its application, and to deposit Rs. 2 Lakh as FDR.

Finally, ruling in favor of the girl, Justice R.P. Dholaria on Tuesday ordered, "...since the victim was aged about 15 years and she was victim of offence of rape, as provided in the aforesaid notification, she is entitled to receive Rs. 3 Lacs as amount of compensation and that has rightly been so ordered by learned Additional Sessions Judge while delivering the judgments. Consequently, therefore, there appears no reason to interfere with the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge."

Read the Order Here

Next Story