Establishment of Enhanced Compensation Guidelines for Minor Rape Victims under the Gujarat Victim Compensation Scheme, 2019

Introduction

The present judgment arises from a Criminal Appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), filed by the father of a 14‑year‑old rape victim against the conviction order of the Special (POCSO) Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch. The trial court had convicted the accused‐convict for kidnapping and repeatedly raping the minor, resulting in her pregnancy and subsequent medically supervised termination. While imposing multiple rigorous imprisonment terms, the trial court awarded the victim a lump‑sum compensation of ₹3,00,000 under Section 357A CrPC. Aggrieved by what was contended as an inadequate award, the victim’s father invoked the Gujarat Victim Compensation Scheme, 2019, seeking enhancement to ₹19,50,000. The Gujarat High Court, presided over by Justice Vimal K. Vyas, heard submissions on whether the trial court had erred in quantifying compensation.

Summary of the Judgment

On 28 March 2025, the Gujarat High Court allowed the appeal in part. The Court held that:

The trial court’s order awarding ₹3,00,000 was a non‑speaking order, lacking any rationale for its quantum in the face of statutory guidelines.
Under the Gujarat Victim Compensation Scheme, 2019, the victim falls under:
1. Category 3 (Rape): upper limit ₹7,00,000;
2. Category 11 (Pregnancy resulting from rape): upper limit ₹4,00,000;
3. Minor uplift (sub‑clause 5 of Clause 9): a 50% increase on the aggregate of statutory maxima.
Applying a reasoned breakdown and the 50% uplift, the Court fixed total compensation at ₹12,75,000, inclusive of the ₹3,00,000 already awarded.
The State Legal Services Authority and District Legal Services Authority were directed to ensure payment.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

While the judgment did not explicitly cite prior judicial decisions, its reasoning aligns with established Supreme Court directives on victim compensation:

Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993): Recognition of state’s obligation to compensate victims of human rights violations.
Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India (1999): Emphasized “just, fair and reasonable” compensation to victims of sexual violence.
Principles in State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (2011): Importance of delivering speaking orders explaining the rationale for sentencing and ancillary relief.

Although not expressly cited, these authorities underpin the High Court’s insistence on reasoned orders and full statutory entitlements under a victim compensation scheme.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning can be distilled into three core steps:

Identifying Statutory Entitlement: The Court referred to the Gujarat Victim Compensation Scheme, 2019, which categorizes injuries and prescribes maxima—₹7 lakh for rape (Category 3) and ₹4 lakh for pregnancy consequent to rape (Category 11).
Applying the Minor Uplift: Clause 9(5) mandates a 50% increase where the victim is a minor. The Court computed the base entitlement (₹7 lakh + ₹4 lakh = ₹11 lakh) then uplifted it by 50%, arriving at ₹16.5 lakh.
Adjusting for Fairness: Recognizing aggravating circumstances—multiple rapes, physical and psychological trauma, and forced termination of pregnancy—the Court exercised judicial discretion to moderate the award to ₹12.75 lakh, balancing statutory maxima and equitable considerations.

The Court also faulted the trial court for issuing a non‑speaking order and underscored the need for reasoned decisions when awarding compensation.

Impact

This judgment delivers several key messages for future cases:

Mandatory Reasoning: Trial courts must provide clear, itemized justification when fixing compensation under Section 357A CrPC.
Full Utilization of Statutory Schemes: Victim Compensation Schemes ought to be interpreted purposively to maximize relief, especially for minors and aggravated offences.
Judicial Discretion within Statutory Bounds: While courts can moderate awards, they must not undercut statutory maxima without explaining why a lower quantum is just.
Benchmark for Other States: This decision may spur other state‑level schemes to adopt similar clear category‑wise guidelines and uplift provisions for minors.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 372 CrPC: Empowers victims to appeal against inadequate compensation orders under Section 357A CrPC.
Non‑Speaking Order: A decision lacking any explanation or rationale—judicially frowned upon as it denies transparency and hinders appellate review.
Victim Compensation Scheme: A statutory framework prescribing category‑wise limits of compensation for bodily, psychological, and economic harms suffered due to crime.
Aggravating Circumstances: Factors such as multiple offences, severe trauma, or medical procedures (e.g., pregnancy termination) that justify higher compensation.
Minor Uplift (Clause 9(5)): A provision in the Gujarat Scheme granting 50% higher compensation to victims under 18 years of age.

Conclusion

The Gujarat High Court’s decision sets a significant precedent on two fronts: first, it reinforces that trial courts must issue reasoned, itemized orders when awarding compensation under Section 357A CrPC; second, it clarifies how to apply the Gujarat Victim Compensation Scheme, 2019—particularly for minor rape victims who endure severe physical and psychological harm. By granting ₹12.75 lakh instead of the trial court’s ₹3 lakh, the Court has underlined the state’s obligation to deliver robust remedial relief to the most vulnerable victims. Future criminal courts in Gujarat—and potentially elsewhere—will look to this ruling to ensure that victim compensation is both legally sound and substantively just.