Xxxxx v. State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON: 29.04.2026 DELIVERED ON: 02.06.2026

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA XXXX (Female/42) YYYY YYY, Vellore. ..Appellant/Guardian of 3 victim children vs.

1.

State rep. by The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Vellore, Vellore District (Crime No.6/2019) 2.

Hidayatullah Khan 3.

Hafeezullah Khan 4.

Kalimulla Khan 5.

Mumtaz Begum Respondents Criminal Appeal filed under Section 413 of BNSS/Section 372 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 29.01.2025 in Spl. S.C. No.113 of 2021 rendered by the Sessions Judge, Special Court of Exclusive Trial of Cases under the POCSO Act, 2012, Vellore District, only to the extent it fails to provide compensation to the victim children and consequentially, provide the victim children with sufficient compensation as stipulated under Rule 9 of the POCSO Rules, 2020. For appellants Ms.Deepika Murali For respondent Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for R1 1/32

JUDGMENT

The instant criminal appeal is filed by the guardian of the three victim children, all of whom are males, (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") seeking to set aside the judgment dated 29.01.2025 passed by the Special Court of Exclusive Trial of Cases under the POCSO Act, 2012, Vellore District (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court"), in Spl. S.C. No. 113 of 2021 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned judgment"), to the limited extent that it fails to provide compensation to three victim children, besides seeking sufficient compensation as stipulated under Rule 9 of the POCSO Rules, 2020. 2.

In this case, private notice was ordered to the respondents 2 to 5 and affidavit of service was also filed. However, none entered appearance. Having gone through the scope of the appeal as aforesaid, this Court finds that the issue involved in this case lies in a very narrow compass i.e., only in respect of nonawarding of sufficient compensation by the Trial Court to the victim children and thus, it is a matter between the appellant and this Court and hence, this Court deems that hearing the respondents 2 to 5 is not required. 3.

For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal will be adverted to as per their rank in this criminal appeal. 2/32

4.

Vide the impugned judgment, the Trial Court convicted the respondents 2 to 5 and sentenced them as tabulated below: Rank Penal Provision Substantive Sentence of fine sentence of imprisonment R2/A1 Section 5(i) 5(m), 5(n) r/w. Section 6 of the POCSO Act, years rigorous imprisonment Rs.1,50,000/-, in default, to undergo six months of rigorous imprisonment.

R3/A2 Section 5(i) 5(m), 5(n) r/w. Section 6 of the POCSO Act, years rigorous imprisonment Rs.1,50,000/-, in default to undergo six months of rigorous imprisonment.

R4/A3 Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 Rs.30,000/-, in default, to undergo six months of rigorous imprisonment.

R5/A4 Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 years rigorous imprisonment years rigorous imprisonment Rs.30,000/- in default, to undergo three months of rigorous imprisonment.

5.

Further, the Trial Court, noting that an interim compensation of Rs.25,000/- was already ordered to be paid to each of the three victim children vide common order dated 17.04.2021 in C.M.P. Nos. 508 to 510 of 2020, did not award any further compensation vide the impugned judgment. However, the Trial Court ordered that the fine amount, if paid by the respondents 2 to 5 is to be proportionally disbursed to the bank account of the three victim children. 6.

The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is as follows: 6.1 The appellant married the second respondent in the year 2006 and thereafter, in the year 2011, the appellant's sister married the third respondent, who is the brother of the second respondent. The appellant had two children 3/32

through her wedlock with the second respondent and the appellant's sister had one child through the wedlock with the third respondent and for the sake of convenience, these three children are collectively referred to as the victim children. The appellant, the appellant's sister, the second and third respondents and the victim children were residing together in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 6.2 While so, the appellant, in the year 2018, caught the third respondent showing pornographic material to the victim children. When the appellant enquired about the same to the second respondent, he refused to confront the third respondent. The appellant, thereafter, uncovered that the second respondent was having illegal affairs with multiple women. 6.3 Hence, in 2018, the appellant decided to return to India with the victim children.

As they were preparing to return to India, the appellant identified a burn injury on her younger son and enquired with him as to the reason for the injury. However, the appellant's younger son refused to disclose anything. Hence, the appellant enquired with her sister's son and learnt that the second and third respondents had, by giving them stupefying agents, forced the victim children to cooperate for sex and that since they did not extend their cooperation, the second and third respondents had caused burn injuries to the victim children, thereby ensuring their cooperation.

4/32

6.4 Thereafter, the appellant, her sister and the victim children returned to the appellant's parents' house at Vellore with the help of the appellant's brother. The second and third respondents also returned to Vellore and convinced the appellant's parents and took the appellant, her sister and the victim children to their residence at Villupuram. The house of the fourth respondent (brother of respondents 2 and 3) and the fifth respondent (mother of respondents 2 to 4) in Villupuram was opposite to that of the second and third respondents and whenever the appellant would take her medication and sleep, the second and third respondents would take the victim children to the house of the fourth and fifth respondents wherein they would commit penetrative sexual assault on them. 6.

5 In the year 2019, the second and third respondents left for Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and the appellant took the victim children back to her parents' residence in Vellore. The victim children immediately thereafter started complaining of pain and burning sensation in their anus and genitals. Therefore, the appellant, on 01.04.2019, took them to a hospital at Vaniyambadi where the appellant was informed that the victim children were subject to penetrative sexual assault and they had injuries in their anus owing to which they needed both medical treatment and psychological counselling. From there, the victim children were sent to the CMC, Vellore, for medical examination on 05.04.2019.

6.6 Hence, the appellant gave a complaint before the All Women Police Station, Vellore, on 06.04.2019, pursuant to which, a case in Cr. No. 6 of 2019 was registered and the statements of the victim children were recorded on 11.04.2019. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer (P.W.13) completed the investigation and filed a final report on 03.09.2021 before the Trial Court for the offences under Sections 5(i), 5(m), 5(n) and 5(l) of the POCSO Act. 6.7 The copy of the final report and other documents were supplied to the respondents 2 to 5 under Section 207 of Cr. P.C. Thereafter, the Trial Court framed charges against the second and third respondents for having committed the offences under Section 5(i), 5(m) and Section 5(n) r/w.

6 of the POCSO Act and charges against the respondents 4 and 5 for having abetted the offences under Section 17 r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act. When the charges were read over and explained to the respondents 2 to 5, they pleaded not guilty. 6.8 In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and marked 20 documents. Thereafter, when the respondents 2 to 5 were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same. In order to prove their case, they examined 5 witnesses and marked 27 exhibits. Further, four material objects also were marked.

6/32

6.9 On the strength of the oral and documentary evidence let in before the Trial Court and hearing the learned counsel on either side, the Trial Court found the evidence of the victim children to be consistent with the medical evidence to show and corroborate that the respondents 2 and 3 had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim children. However, the Trial Court found that the victim children had not mentioned the name of the respondents 4 and 5 when they informed the doctors as to the persons who committed penetrative sexual assault.

Although the Trial Court found the evidence of the victim children to be insufficient to convict the respondents 4 and 5 for abetment of the offences relating to aggravated penetrative sexual assault, the Trial Court found that the victim children had deposed that the respondents 4 and 5 would dance naked around the victim children and force the victim children to dance naked around them. Therefore, the Trial Court found the respondents 2 and 3 guilty of having committed the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault and the respondents 4 and 5 guilty of having committed the offence of sexual harassment. As stated above, the Trial Court, while convicting the respondents 2 to 5, imposed a fine, which was to be disbursed to the victim children.

However, the Trial Court refrained from granting compensation to the victim children citing that interim compensation of Rs. 25,000/- was already paid to each of the victim children under common order dated 17.04.2021 in C.M.P.Nos. 508 to 510 of 2020.

7/32

6.10. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the instant criminal appeal has been filed by the guardian of the victim children on the sole ground that although the Trial Court has rightly convicted the respondents 2 to 5 as stated above, the Trial Court has, however, erred in failing to grant compensation to the victim children as required to be granted as per the rulings in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India1 and Saibaj Noormohammad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra2. 7.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court, having found that the victim children have suffered incestuous aggravated penetrative sexual assault continuously for a long period of time spanning over multiple years and they have developed and are till date suffering from severe post traumatic stress disorder, ought to have awarded sufficient compensation to them.

8.

The Trial Court failed to appreciate the necessity for awarding sufficient and appropriate victim compensation and erred in holding that the award of the fine amount alone would be sufficient for the victim children's remedial measure.

9.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) fairly submitted that the Department of Child Welfare and Special Services has no 1 (2019) 2 SCC 703 2 SLP (Crl.) No. 13890 of 2024 decided on 04.11.2024 8/32

objection in the Court awarding appropriate compensation to the victim children in commensurate with their sufferings.

10.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent and perused the material on record.

11.

From the impugned judgment, this Court finds that the Trial Court has done a threadbare appreciation of the overwhelming evidence in respect of the post-traumatic stress disorder suffered by the victim children. The impugned judgment even goes on to find that persons who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder tend to have recurrent flashbacks of the events causing such disorder and are therewith often preoccupied by their recollection of such events which, in turn, render it difficult for them to have healthy relationships and lead a normal life. When such are the findings of the Trial Court, the Trial Court ought to have taken them into consideration and ensured that the victim children received adequate compensation for their past and future sufferings arising out of the offence.

Besides the sufferings of the victim children, it is also very much necessary and imperative to take into consideration the cost likely to be incurred by them for proper, treatment, therapy and rehabilitation. Hence, this Court finds it difficult to reconcile with the reasons assigned by the Trial Court for finding that the interim compensation and the disbursement of fine amount alone would be suffice for the rehabilitation of the victim children.

12.

Having held so, this Court finds that Section 33(8) of the POCSO Act, 2012 r/w. Rule 9 of the POCSO Rules, 2020, provides that the Trial Court may, in appropriate cases, provide compensation to the victim children after taking into consideration the relevant factors for the grant of such compensation. As per the dictum of the Apex Court in Nipun Saxena, supra and Saibaj Noormohammad Shaikh, supra, the Trial Court ought to have granted adequate compensation to the victim children or on the other hand, in the event of not awarding sufficient compensation, ought to have recorded proper reasons therefor.

13.

The relevant portion in Nipun Saxena, supra, reads thus: "44. In Bijoy v. State of W.B. [Bijoy v. State of W.B., 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 417 : 2017 Cri LJ 3893] , the Calcutta High Court has given a detailed judgment setting out the reasons while dealing with the provisions of Pocso and held that neither during investigation nor during trial the name of the victim should be disclosed.

45. The Calcutta High Court in Bijoy case [Bijoy v. State of W.B., 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 417 : 2017 Cri LJ 3893] has also given other directions to ensure that the provisions of the law are followed in letter and spirit, and the fundamental rights of a child victim and other basic human rights are protected. We are in agreement with all these directions. Though some of the issues dealt with in these directions do not strictly arise in this case, keeping in view the fact that we are dealing with the rights of children, we are annexing the directions issued by the Calcutta High Court as Annexure 1 to this judgment. We request all the Chairpersons and Members of all the Juvenile Justice Committee of all the High Courts in the country to go through the judgment of the Calcutta High Court and the directions issued therein and they may issue similar directions, keeping in view the particular needs of each High Court/State. 10/32

53. ANNEXURE - 1 (Directions issued by the Calcutta High Court in Bijoy v. State of W.B. [Bijoy v. State of W.B., 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 417: 2017 Cri LJ 3893], SCC OnLine Cal para 40) ... 9. The Special Court upon receipt of information as to commission of any offence under the Act by registration of FIR shall on his own or on the application of the victim make enquiry as to the immediate needs of the child for relief or rehabilitation and upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the State and other affected parties including the victim pass appropriate order for interim compensation and/or rehabilitation of the child.

In conclusion of proceeding, whether the accused is convicted or not, or in cases where the accused has not been traced or had absconded, the Special Court being satisfied that the victim had suffered loss or injury due to commission of the offence shall award just and reasonable compensation in favour of the victim. The quantum of the compensation shall be fixed taking into consideration the loss and injury suffered by the victim and other related factors as laid down in Rule 7(3) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2012 and shall not be restricted to the minimum amounts prescribed in the Victim Compensation Fund.

The interim/final compensation shall be paid either from the Victim Compensation Fund or any other special scheme/fund established under Section 357-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (sic) or any other law for the time being in force through the State Legal Services Authorities or the District Services Authority in whose hands the Fund is entrusted. If the Court declines to pass interim or final compensation in the instant case it shall record its reasons for not doing so. The interim compensation, so paid, shall be adjusted with final compensation, if any, awarded by the Special Court in conclusion of trial in terms of Section 33(8) of the Act."

(emphasis supplied by this Court) 14.

The relevant portion in Saibaj Noormohammad Shaikh, supra, reads thus:

11/32

"In the circumstances, we direct that a Sessions Court, which adjudicates a case concerning the bodily injuries such as sexual assault etc. particularly on minor children and women shall order for victim compensation to be paid having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and based on the evidence on record, while passing the judgment either convicting or acquitting the accused. Secondly, the said direction must be implemented by the District Legal Services Authority or State Legal Services Authority, as the case may be, in letter and spirit and in the quickest manner and to ensure that the victim is paid the compensation at the earliest."

(emphasis supplied by this Court) 15.

Further, it is noteworthy that the Apex Court, very recently, has followed the dictum laid down in Nipun Saxena, supra, in Bhanei Prasad @ Raju v. State of H.P.3 and had granted a compensation of Rs.10,50,000/- for a victim child who suffered aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the hands of her very own father. The relevant portion in Bhanei Prasad, supra, reads thus: "13. When a father who is expected to be a shield, a guardian, a moral compass, becomes the source of the most severe violation of a child's bodily integrity and dignity, the betrayal is not only personal but institutional. The law does not, and cannot, condone such acts under the guise of rehabilitation or reform.

Incestuous sexual violence committed by a parent is a distinct category of offence that tears through the foundational fabric of familial trust and must invite the severest condemnation in both language and sentence. The home, which should be a sanctuary, cannot be permitted to become a site of unspeakable trauma, and the courts must send a clear signal that such offences will be met with an equally unsparing judicial response. To entertain a plea for leniency in a case of this nature would not merely be misplaced, it would constitute a betrayal of the Court's own constitutional duty to protect the vulnerable. When a child is forced to suffer at the hands of her own father, the law must speak in a voice that is resolute and uncompromising.

There can be no mitigation in sentencing for crimes that subvert the very notion of family as a space of security.

14.

In such exceptional circumstances, this Court cannot rest content with the imposition of penal consequences alone. The arc of constitutional justice, particularly under Article 142, extends beyond punishment to encompass rehabilitation, reparation, and the affirmation of human dignity. As held in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, this Court accepted and directed the implementation of the "Compensation Scheme 3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1636 12/32

for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, 2018" framed by the National Legal Services Authority. Under the said Scheme, the maximum compensation prescribed for victims of rape is Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Only) which is to be enhanced by 50% in cases involving minor victims.

15.

Having regard to the age of the victim at the time of the offence, the sustained nature of the abuse, and the constitutional obligation to provide meaningful redress, we direct that a sum of Rs. 10,50,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) be paid to the victim as compensation as per the Scheme by the State of Himachal Pradesh in the peculiar facts of the case. Though the victim has now attained the age of majority, we are of the considered view that in order to protect her future interest, some amount if ordered to be kept in a fixed deposit, it would secure her best interest. Hence, we direct that a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Only) be kept in a fixed deposit in any nationalised bank for a period of 5 years in the name of the victim and she would be entitled to withdraw the quarterly interest. The balance, Rs.

3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only) shall be paid to her by transferring the said amount to her account, the details of which shall be furnished by her to the Member Secretary, Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority. It is needless to state that on maturity of the fixed deposit, the proceeds thereof shall be transferred to her account, and this process shall be monitored by the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority."

(emphasis supplied by this Court) 16.

From the above, this Court is inclined to give due weightage to the finding of fact by the Trial Court that the victim children had suffered aggravated penetrative sexual assault from none other than their very own father and paternal uncle, both of whom were entrusted with the primary responsibility of protecting them from perpetrators.

17.

Hence, this Court finds that, as strongly emphasised by the Apex Court, incestuous sexual violence committed by a parent is a distinct category of 13/32

offence and thus, is an exceptional circumstance that mandates the grant of compensation to the victim children.

18.

However, since the Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, 2018, would not be applicable to male children, this Court is inclined to take into account G.O. (Ms) No.33, Department of Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme dated 03.10.2020 and G.O. (Ms) No. 32, Department of Social Welfare and Women Empowerment dated 10.07.2021.

19.

On a perusal of the G.O. (Ms) No. 33, supra, it is notable that the Tamil Nadu Child Victim Compensation Fund was established and that the minimum and maximum quantum of compensation payable to the victim children was laid down therein. As per the same, the minimum and maximum quantum of compensation for victim children affected by aggravated penetrative sexual assault are Rs.5 lakhs and Rs.10 lakhs respectively. 20.

Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment, the Trial Court ought to have considered that the minimum quantum of compensation prescribed to be awarded was Rs.5,00,000/- and accordingly, ought to have awarded, at least, the minimum quantum. However, the Trial Court has erred in this regard. 14/32

21.

Having found that the Trial Court has failed to provide adequate compensation, this Court finds it necessary to determine the appropriate quantum of compensation and to award the same to the victim children. 22.

In this regard, it would be useful to refer to Rule 9 of the POCSO Rules, 2020 and also G.O.Ms.No.33, supra and G.O.Ms.No.32, supra, in their entirety.

"9. Compensation.-

(1) The Special Court may, in appropriate cases, on its own or on an application filed by or on behalf of the child, pass an order for interim compensation to meet the needs of the child for relief or rehabilitation at any stage after registration of the First Information Report. Such interim compensation paid to the child shall be adjusted against the final compensation, if any.

(2) The Special Court may, on its own or on an application filed by or on behalf of the victim, recommend the award of compensation where the accused is convicted, or where the case ends in acquittal or discharge, or the accused is not traced or identified, and in the opinion of the Special Court the child has suffered loss or injury as a result of that offence.

(3) Where the Special Court, under sub-section (8) of Section 33 of the Act read with sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 357-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) makes a direction for the award of compensation to the victim, it shall take into account all relevant factors relating to the loss or injury caused to the victim, including the following:- (i) type of abuse, gravity of the offence and the severity of the mental or physical harm or injury suffered by the child;

(ii) the expenditure incurred or likely to be incurred on child's medical treatment for physical or mental health or on both;

(iii) loss of educational opportunity as a consequence of the offence, including absence from school due to mental trauma, bodily injury, medical treatment, investigation and trial of the offence, or any other reason;

15/32

(iv) loss of employment as a result of the offence, including absence from place of employment due to mental trauma, bodily injury, medical treatment, investigation and trial of the offence, or any other reason;

(v) the relationship of the child to the offender, if any;

(vi) whether the abuse was a single isolated incidence or whether the abuse took place over a period of time; (vii) whether the child became pregnant as a result of the offence;

(viii) whether the child contracted a Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) as a result of the offence: (ix) whether the child contracted Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) as a result of the offence; (x) any disability suffered by the child as a result of the offence;

(xi) financial condition of the child against whom the offence has committed so as to determine such child's need for rehabilitation;

(xii) any other factor that the Special Court may consider to be relevant.

(4) The compensation awarded by the Special Court is to be paid by the State Government from the Victims Compensation Fund or other scheme or fund established by it for the purposes of compensating and rehabilitating victims under Section 357-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force, or, where such fund or scheme does not exist, by the State Government.

(5) The State Government shall pay the compensation ordered by the Special Court within 30 days of receipt of such order.

(6) Nothing in these rules shall prevent a child or child's parent or guardian or any other person in whom the child has trust and confidence from submitting an application for seeking relief under any other rules or scheme of the Central Government or State Government."

16/32

17/32

18/32

19/32

20/32

21/32

22/32

23/32

24/32

25/32

26/32

27/32

28/32

23.

Therefore, what remains to be decided is the quantum of compensation to be granted to the victim children. For determining the quantum, this Court takes guidance of the factors enumerated under Rule 9 of the POCSO Rules, 2020 and the two Government Orders referred to supra. On considering the same, this Court finds that the following factors therein are relevant to the present case for proper quantification and awarding of appropriate compensation.

9(3)(viii) Not Applicable Whether the child contracted Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) as a result of the offence;

9(3)(ix) Not Applicable 29/32

Rule Description of Rule Relevance to present case 9(3)(x) Any disability suffered by the child as a result of the offence Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Financial condition of the child against whom the offence has been committed so as to determine such child's need for rehabilitation; Under the care and custody of an employed mother (i.e.

Government School Teacher) 9(3)(xi) 9(3)(xii) Any other factor that the Special Court may consider to be relevant Not Applicable 24.

Upon consideration of the above relevant factors and upon being guided by the quantum awarded by the Apex Court in Bhanei Prasad, supra, this Court holds that each of the victim children is entitled to the maximum compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- since they have been subjected to incestuous aggravated penetrative sexual assault over a period of years resulting in them suffering from post traumatic stress disorder which needs continuous therapy and rehabilitation.

25.

In the result, this criminal appeal to the limited extent of seeking enhanced victim compensation stands allowed. The findings in respect of the award of victim compensation alone, in the impugned judgment of the Trial Court, is hereby modified and the Commissioner/Director of Social Defence is consequently directed to disburse a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, to each of the victim children, after adjusting the interim compensation and the fine amount, 30/32

if already paid by the respondents 2 to 5 to them, within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

26.

While bringing the curtains down, this Court, once again, makes it clear that this judgment is only in respect of deciding the quantum of victim compensation and the findings in respect of award of compensation will not have any ramification/bearing on the appeals preferred/to be preferred by the respondents 2 to 5 against the impugned judgment convicting and sentencing them.

02.06.2026 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No raa 31/32

A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

raa To 1.

The Sessions Judge Special Court of Exclusive Trial of Cases under the POCSO Act, 2012 Vellore District 2.

The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Vellore Vellore District 3.

The Commissioner of Social Defence No. 300, Purasawalkam High Road Kellys, Chennai - 600 010 4.

The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104 Judgment in Crl. Appeal No.1443 of 2025 02.06.2026 32/32