Bhinsent Toppo vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 October, 2022

[Cites 34, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Bhinsent Toppo vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 October, 2022

1. By way of this criminal appeal preferred by the appellant herein under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, the appellant has called in question legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21-1-2015 Cr.A.No.373/2015 Page 2 of 21 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Surguja (Ambikapur), in Sessions Trial No.143/2013, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: -

            Conviction                           Sentences
   Section 342 of the IPC      Rigorous imprisonment for one year
                               and fine of ₹ 1,000/-, in default,
                               additional rigorous imprisonment for
                               one month

Section 506 Part-II of Rigorous imprisonment for two years the IPC and fine of ₹ 1,000/-, in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for one month Section 376(2)(f) of the Imprisonment for life and fine of ₹ IPC 1,000/-, in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for one month Section 354A of the Rigorous imprisonment for three years IPC and fine of ₹ 1,000/-, in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for one month Section 5(f)/5(m) read Imprisonment for life and fine of ₹ with Section 6 of the 1,000/-, in default, additional rigorous POCSO Act imprisonment for one month Section 9(f)/9(m) read Rigorous imprisonment for seven years with Section 10 of the and fine of ₹ 1,000/-, in default, POCSO Act additional rigorous imprisonment for one month (All sentences were directed to run concurrently)

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that prior to 3-4 days of 19-2- 2013 at 11.30 a.m., at Village Kalyanpur, Mission School, Police Station Darima, the appellant herein called victim No.1 (PW-2), Cr.A.No.373/2015 Page 3 of 21 victim No.2 (PW-4), victim No.3 (PW-5) & victim No.4 (PW-6) to his chamber in the school and wrongly confined them and threatened them to kill them and committed sexual assault / penetrative sexual assault / aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon them and thereby committed the aforesaid offences. It is admitted position on record that victims No.1 to 4 were students of the Mission School at that point of time and the appellant was Father of the said Mission School being head of the institution. Further case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19-2-2013, Manglu Toppo (PW-1) - father of victim No.1 lodged report in Police Station Darima that his daughter victim No.1 (PW-2), aged about 5 years; his grand-daughter victim No.2 (PW-4), aged about 8 years; Vritlal Lakra's daughter victim No.3 (PW-5), aged about 6 years; and his neighbour Janbir Bada's daughter victim No.4 (PW-6), aged about 6 years, were studying in the Mission School, Kalyanpur in Class-II; on 18-2-2013 at 5 O' clock in the evening, his daughter victim No.1 (PW-2) and his grand-daughter victim No.2 (PW-4) informed him that four days prior to the date of lodging FIR, the appellant herein called them and given them chocolates & sweets and taken them to his room and after undressing them, touched their private parts and threatened them to kill them, and similar fact was stated by victim No.3 (PW-5) & victim No.4 (PW-6) which was verified and thereafter, report was registered to the police station on 19-2-2013 vide Ex.P-1. Spot Cr.A.No.373/2015 Page 4 of 21 map was prepared vide Ex.P-6. Victims No.1, 2, 3 & 4 were sent for medical examination and permission was obtained from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ambikapur vide Ex.P-26, and consent of their parents was taken vide Exs.P-5, P-27 & P-28 and for examination of their private parts, they were referred to the District Hospital, Ambikapur. During the course of investigation, currency notes of denominations of ₹ 5, ₹ 10, one rupee coins and chocolates were seized from the spot vide Ex.P-2. Inner-wears of victim No.1 (PW-2), victim No.2 (PW-4), victim No.3 (PW-5) & victim No.4 (PW-6) were also seized vide respective seizure memos and the same were sent to the District Hospital for examination vide Exs.P-24A, P-25A, P-29 & P-30. The accused was arrested vide Ex.P-22 and on his production, his underwear was seized vide Ex.P-21 and he was medically examined. Similarly, documents regarding age of all the victims were seized vide Exs.P-11, 12C & 13-C. Seized articles were for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory vide Ex.P-34 and the FSL report is Ex.P-37. The accused abjured the guilt and entered into defence that he has not committed the offence and he has been falsely implicated.

3. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for offences under Sections 342, 506 Part-II, 376(2)(f) & 354A of the IPC and also for offences under Sections 5(f)/5(m) read Cr.A.No.373/2015 Page 5 of 21 with Section 6 & 9(f)/9(m) read with Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'the POCSO Act').

4. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 13 witnesses PW-1 to PW-13 in support of its case and exhibited 37 documents Exs.P-1 to P-37 and Article 1 (X-Ray Plate). Defence has not examined any witness in its support, however, exhibited one document Ex.D-1 i.e. the statement of Manglu Rai Toppo recorded under Seciton 161 of the CrPC. Statement of the accused / appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence and false implication and claimed to be tried.

5. The trial Court after completion of trial and upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, by its impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which he has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC.

6. Mr. Surendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit as under: -

1. The prosecution has not been able to prove the fact of penetration and therefore no offences as alleged have been proved on behalf of the prosecution, as there is no injury on private parts of victims No.1 to 4 and in case of two victims, Cr.A.No.373/2015 Page 6 of 21 hymen has been found intact and in case of two victims, it has not been mentioned whether the hymen was ruptured or not, therefore, conviction & sentences of the appellant for the said offences are bad in law.

2. All the victims were young girls and the appellant is a fully matured grown-up person and in case of penetration, there would have been massive bleeding from private parts of the victims which is absolutely missing in the evidence brought by the prosecution and alleged redness and swelling, if any, on private parts of two victims can be caused on account of non-

cleanliness of their genital regions by the victims and it can also be on account of infection and discharge, and as per the medical opinion of doctor, the fact of penetration has not been proved and at the best, offence of committing attempt to rape would be made out. Reliance has been placed upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Rahim Beg v. The State of U.P.1 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mahendra alias Golu2. As such, conviction of the appellant for the offences alleged against him deserves to be set aside.

7. Mr. Sudeep Verma, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent, would support the impugned judgment and submit as under: -

1 AIR 1973 SC 343 2 AIR 2021 SC 5242 Cr.A.No.373/2015 Page 7 of 21

1. Victims No.1 to 4 all were minors below the age of 12 years on the date of offence which has been proved. Sister Kanti Indwar (PW-7) has proved Exs.P-11, 12 & 13 so far as date of birth of victims No.1 (PW-2), No.2 (PW-4) and No.4 (PW-6) are concerned, however, date of birth of victim No.3 (PW-5) has been proved by Surit Sarthi (PW-13).

Even otherwise, defence has failed to establish that the victims were majors on the date of offence by leading any clinching evidence and age of victims has also not been questioned seriously on behalf of the defence.

2. Medical reports of victim No.1 (PW-2) & victim No.2 (PW-

4) have been exhibited as Exs.P-16 & P-23, respectively, and proved by Dr. Kiran Bhajagwali (PW-9) and similarly, medical reports of victim No.3 (PW-5) & victim No.4 (PW-6) have been exhibited as Exs.P-21 & P-22, respectively, and proved by Dr. Manju Ekka (PW-12), which clearly support the statements of the victims. As such, the prosecution has discharged its primary burden of proving that victims No.1 to 4 were sexually assaulted and they were minors on the date of offence which has also been proved by medical evidence of Dr. Kiran Bhajagwali (PW-9) & Dr. Manju Ekka (PW-12) and it was for the appellant to discharge the burden put over him by Section 29 of Evidence Act by leading cogent and Cr.A.No.373/2015 Page 8 of 21 positive evidence, but no explanation has been offered by him in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC and therefore the presumption under Section 29 of the Evidence Act is squarely attracted in the present case.

3. While replying to the submission made by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that it is only a case of attempt to rape, no offence under Section 5(f) of the POCSO Act is made out, learned State counsel would submit that there is distinction between rape and penetrative sexual assault, and would also submit that even for the offence of rape, rupture of hymen is not necessary, the appellant's act with the victims would clearly fall under the definition of Section 3(a) to (c) of the POCSO Act. Reliance has been placed upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Nawabuddin v. State of Uttarakhand3 and Attorney General for India v. Satish and another4 in support of the contention and it has been submitted that the appeal of the appellant deserves to be dismissed.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

9. The appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 3 (2022) 5 SCC 419 4 (2022) 5 SCC 545 Cr.A.No.373/2015 Page 9 of 21 5(f)/5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. He has also been convicted for offence under Section 9(f)/9(m) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act. Section 2(1)(a) of the POCSO Act defines "aggravated penetrative sexual assault" means it has the same meaning as assigned to it in Section 5. Section 2(1)(f) of the POCSO Act defines "penetrative sexual assault" means it has the same meaning as assigned to it in Section 3. Section 2(1)(i) of the POCSO Act defines "sexual assault" means it has the same meaning as assigned to it in Section 7. It would be appropriate to notice Section 7 of the POCSO Act which defines "sexual assault". It reads as under: -

"7. Sexual Assault.--Whoever, with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault."

10. Section 9 of the POCSO Act under which the appellant has been convicted, states as under: -

"9. Aggravated Sexual Assault.--(a) to (e) xxx xxx xxx

(f) whoever being on the management or staff of an educational institution or religious institution, commits sexual assault on a child in that institution; or

(g) to (l) xxx xxx xxx

(m) whoever commits sexual assault on a child below twelve years; or

(n) to (v) xxx xxx xxx Cr.A.No.373/2015 Page 10 of 21 is said to commit aggravated sexual assault."

11. From the aforesaid definitions, it appears that when sexual assault as defined under Section 7 of the POCSO Act is committed on a child below twelve years, it tantamounts to aggravated sexual assault by reason of the age of the victim as specified in Section 9 of the POCSO Act.

12. Charge under Section 5(f)/5(m) of the POCSO Act has also been framed and found proved against the appellant. Sections 5(f) & 5(m) of the POCSO Act state as under: -

"5. Aggravated penetrative sexual assault.--(a) to (e) xxx xxx xxx

(f) whoever being on the management or staff of an educational institution or religious institution, commits penetrative sexual assault on a child in that institution; or

(g) to (l) xxx xxx xxx

(m) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child below twelve years; or

(n) to (u) xxx xxx xxx is said to commit aggravated penetrative sexual assault."

Thus, penetrative sexual assault assumes an aggravated form when it is committed on a child below the age of twelve years.

13. Vide Ex.P-11, date of birth of victim No.1 (PW-2) as 9-11-2005 has been proved by Sister Kanti Indwar (PW-7) and vide Ex.P-12, date of birth of victim No.2 (PW-4) as 9-11-2005 has also been Cr.A.No.373/2015 Page 11 of 21 proved by Sister Kanti Indwar (PW-7). Similarly, date of birth of victim No.4 (PW-6) as 11-11-2004 has been proved by Sister Kanti Indwar (PW-7) vide Ex.P-13. However, date of birth of victim No.3 (PW-5) as 2-6-2006 has been proved by Surit Sarthi (PW-13) - investigating officer vide Ex.P-4. Furthermore, even it has not been seriously contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant disputing the age of victims No.1 to 4 to be majors on the date of offence, if any. In that view of the matter, it is held that all the four victims No.1 to 4 were minors on the date of offence and the learned Additional Sessions Judge is justified in holding them to be minors on the date of offence.

14. The sole and solitary submission made on behalf of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that there was no penetration at all and hymens of the two victims namely victims No.3 & 4 (PW-5 & PW-6) have been found intact and therefore there is no penetration and consequently, no offence of rape is made out against the appellant and at the most, it can be said to be attempt to commit rape that can be made out and as such, conviction of the appellant for the offences charged is unsustainable and bad in law.

15. In order to consider the plea so raised, it would be appropriate to notice Section 3 of the POCSO Act, which defines "penetrative sexual assault" and which states as under: -

Cr.A.No.373/2015

Page 12 of 21

"3. Penetrative sexual assault.--A person is said to commit "penetrative sexual assault" if--

(a) he penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or

(b) he inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or

(c) he manipulates any part of the body of the child so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or

(d) he applies his mouth to the penis, vagina, anus, urethra of the child or makes the child to do so to such person or any other person."

16. A careful perusal of the statement of victim No.1 (PW-2) would show that she has clearly stated that the appellant has undressed her and inserted his penis into her urethra / vagina, as such, his act is covered by Section 3(a) of the POCSO Act. The statement of victim No.2 (PW-4) would show that the appellant has un- tightened her underwear and pressed his penis into her urethra / vagina and also touched her urethra / vagina by his hand and thus, his act is covered by Section 3(a) & (b) of the POCSO Act. Similarly, victim No.3 (PW-5) has also made similar statement that the appellant pressed his penis into her urethra / vagina, thus, the same would be covered by Section 3(a) of the POCSO Act. Likewise, the statement of victim No.4 (PW-6) (paragraph 3) Cr.A.No.373/2015 Page 13 of 21 would show that the appellant touched her urethra / vagina, stomach and chest and thus, his act would be covered under Section 3(a)(b) of the POCSO Act.

17. Furthermore, apart from this, Dr. Kiran Bhajagwali (PW-9), who has examined victim No.1 (PW-2) vide medical report Ex.P-16 and victim No.2 (PW-4) vide medical report Ex.P-23, has clearly stated that vaginal wall was having redness and swelling, though she has opined that attempt to commit rape on the victims was made. Similarly, victims No.3 & 4 (PW-5 & PW-6) were examined by Dr. Manju Ekka (PW-12) and she found that hymen of the victims was intact, but she has stated that outside the hymen there was slight redness on right side. As such, the statements of the victims are supported by medical evidence duly proved by Dr. Kiran Bhajagwali (PW-9) and Dr. Manju Ekka (PW-12) and therefore it has been established and proved by the prosecution that the appellant penetrated his penis / private part into the vagina / urethra of the victims which would fall within the definition of penetrative sexual assault i.e. Section 3(a) & (b) of the POCSO Act, because the victims (girls) suffered swelling and redness in their private parts and there was redness and swelling around the vagina as found by the doctors.

18. In Nawabuddin (supra), the appellant (therein) penetrated his finger into the vagina of the victim below the age of 12 years. Cr.A.No.373/2015 Page 14 of 21 Their Lordships considered the issue and held in paragraph 11.5 as under: -

"11.5. In the present case, it has been established and proved that the accused penetrated his finger in the vagina and because of that the victim girl felt pain and irritation in urination as well as pain on her body and there was redness and swelling around the vagina found by the doctor. We are of the opinion that therefore the case would fall under Section 3(b) of the POCSO Act and it can be said to be penetrative sexual assault and considering Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act as such penetrative sexual assault was committed on a girl child aged four years (below twelve years) the same can be said to be "aggravated penetrative sexual assault"

punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

Therefore, both, the trial court as well as the High Court have rightly convicted the accused for the offences under Section 5 of the POCSO Act punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act."

19. In view of the aforesaid finding and analysis made by this Court, we are of the opinion that the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the offence would not fall within the meaning of Section 3(a) & (b) of the POCSO Act and it would only a mere attempt to commit the offence of rape, deserves to be and is accordingly rejected. Furthermore, in view of the statements of victim No.1 (PW-2), victim No.2 (PW-4), victim No.3 (PW-5) & victim No.4 (PW-6) and that of Dr. Kiran Bhajagwali (PW-9) & Dr. Manju Ekka (PW-12) and moreover, considering the medical reports of the victims, we are of the clear opinion that the trial Court is absolutely justified in convicting the appellant for the Cr.A.No.373/2015 Page 15 of 21 aforesaid offences, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Nawabuddin (supra).

20. At this stage, it would be appropriate to consider the two judgments relied upon and cited by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

21. Firstly, in Rahim Beg (supra), while considering the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 375 of the IPC, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that rape alleged to have been committed by a fully developed man on a girl of 10 or 12 years who was virgin and whose hymen was intact, absence of injuries on the male organ of accused would point to his innocence. This decision is clearly distinguishable to the facts of the present case, as in the instant case in hand, the appellant was also charged for offences under Sections 5(f)/5(m) and 9(f)/9(m) of the POCSO Act and the act of the present appellant squarely falls within the definition of Section 3 of the POCSO Act.

22. Similarly, in Mahendra alias Golu's case (supra), the appellant therein was charged and convicted for offence under Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 of the IPC, that case was also an un-amended case of Section 375 of the IPC and the date of offence in that case was 20-12-2005, but in the present case, the appellant has been charged under the POCSO Act in addition to Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC. The appellant herein was also Cr.A.No.373/2015 Page 16 of 21 charged for offences under Sections 5(f)/5(m) and 9(f)/9(m) of the POCSO Act and the act of the present appellant squarely falls within the definition of Section 3 of the POCSO Act, therefore, this decision is also not helpful to the appellant.

23. Consequently, we find that the appellant's conviction and sentences are well merited and the appeal deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.

24. Before parting with record, the issue of victim compensation needs to be addressed by us. The learned Special Judge in paragraph 47 of her judgment had only recommended for compensation of ₹ 1,000 to each of the victims, which is totally inadequate and contrary to Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/other Crimes, 2018 formulated by the State of Chhattisgarh w.e.f. 2-10-2018 pursuant to the direction given by the Supreme Court in the matter of Nipun Saxena and another v. Union of India and others5.

25. The Supreme Court in the matter of Nipun Saxena (supra), in paragraph 9, held on 05.09.2018 that till the Scheme is framed, the NALSA's Compensation Scheme should function as a guideline to the Special Court for the award of compensation to victims of child sexual abuse under Rule 7 of the POCSO Rules of 2012. Paragraphs 2, 9, 10 and 11 to 15 of the report state as under :-

"2. It has been brought to our notice that as far as 5 (2019) 13 SCC 715 Cr.A.No.373/2015 Page 17 of 21 children are concerned, no Scheme of this nature has been framed with regard to the victims of sexual abuse under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short "the POCSO Act").

9. Keeping this hiatus in mind, we are of the opinion, after hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as learned Additional Solicitor General, that NALSA's Compensation Scheme should function as a guideline to the Special Court for the award of compensation to victims of child sexual abuse under Rule 7 until the Rules are finalised by the Central Government.

10. The Special Judge will, of course, take the provisions of the POCSO Act into consideration as well as any circumstances that are special to the victim while passing an appropriate order.

11. We need not emphasise that the legislation is gender neutral and, therefore, the guidelines will be applicable to all children.

12. The Special Judge will also pass appropriate orders regarding actual physical payment of the compensation or the interim compensation so that it is not misused or misutilised and is actually available for the benefit of the child victim. If the Special Judge deems it appropriate, an order of depositing the amount in an interest-bearing account may be passed.

13. A copy of NALSA's Compensation Scheme as well as a copy of this order should be sent by the Registry to the Registrar General of every High Court with a direction that the Registrar General will circulate them to all the District Judges concerned for circulation to the Special Judges and the State, District and Taluka Legal Services Committees.

14. A copy of the Scheme and a copy of the order passed by this Court will also be sent by the Registry to all the Judicial Academies for information.

Cr.A.No.373/2015 Page 18 of 21

15. We also direct that the publicity should be given to the Scheme as well as the order passed by us on regular basis until the Rules re finalized by the Central Government. The learned Additional Solicitor General assures us that the needful will be done on a regular basis through all forms of media. Needless to say that the Scheme and the Guidelines will be operational from 02.10.2018."

26. It would be appropriate to mention here that the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) setup a committee and finalised the Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/other Crimes and submitted before the Supreme Court on 24-4-2018 and on 21-5-2018, the said Scheme was accepted by the Supreme Court and called as "the Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/other Crimes". In the said Scheme, minimum limit of compensation provided to rape victim is ₹ 4 lakhs and upper limit of compensation is ₹ 7 lakhs and thereafter in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 357A of the Code, the State of Chhattisgarh has framed a scheme known as the "Compensation Scheme for Women victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/other Crimes, 2018" with effect from 2-10- 2018, explanation appended to the Scheme provides that in case of Minor Victims under POCSO, it would be applicable. The Schedule attached to the said Scheme provides that in case of rape, minimum limit of compensation would be ₹ 4 lakhs and upper limit of compensation would be ₹ 7 lakhs. Serial No.3 of the said Schedule reads as under: -

Cr.A.No.373/2015

Page 19 of 21

SCHEDULE APPLICABLE TO WOMEN VICTIM OF CRIMES S.No. Particulars of loss Minimum Limit of Upper Limit of or injury Compensation Compensation

3. Rape Rs. 4 Lakh Rs. 7 Lakh

27. Now, the question is, whether the rape victims are entitled for compensation as per the Scheme of 2018 framed by the State Government which came into force with effect from 2 nd October, 2018 as per the notification dated 4th February, 2019 by which date the Scheme has been brought into force or under the old scheme which was in force with effect from 3-8-2011 as offence in present case is said to have been committed 3-4 days prior to 19- 2-2013.

28. Reverting to the facts of the present case in the light of the above- stated statutory provisions and in the light of the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in aforesaid judgment, it is quite vivid that since the victims were minors and the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC read with Section 5(f)/5(m) read with Section 6 of the Act read Section 9(f)/9(m) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act, the rape victims and her family members were required to be rehabilitated/protected. Consequently, recommendation ought to have been made by the Special Judge to the DLSA or the SLSA under Section 357A(2) of Cr.A.No.373/2015 Page 20 of 21 the Code, but that has not been done despite the clear cut mandate in that regard. Taking into consideration that the rape victims were minors aged about 5 to 6 years only on the date of offence and they have been sexually assaulted when the offence took place and they have suffered not only physically but mentally also, and considering the gravity of offence and that they are required to be rehabilitated and further taking into consideration the provisions contained in the Scheme of 2018 and victims have been traumatized heavily, particularly taking into consideration their age i.e. approximately 5 to 6 years, each of the victims are entitled for total compensation of ₹ 7 lakhs under the Scheme of 2018 and not under the Scheme of 2011.

29. Accordingly, it is held that the each of the rape victims [Victim No.1 (PW2), Victim No.2 (PW4), Victim No.3 (PW5) and Victim No.4 (PW6)] will be entitled for compensation of ₹ 7 lakhs from the State Government along with 6% interest from today till the date of payment. The District Magistrate, Surguja at Ambikapur shall deposit the above-stated amount before the concerned Special Court within 30 days from today. The concerned Special Judge shall disburse the said amount to the victims in accordance with the directions given by the Supreme Court in the matter of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and Cr.A.No.373/2015 Page 21 of 21 others6 (paragraph 17) read with paragraph 12 in Nipun Saxena (supra).

30. Consequently, the criminal appeal is dismissed with modification of directions regarding the victim compensation as contained in paragraph 29 of this judgment.

              Sd/-                                               Sd/-
       (Sanjay K. Agrawal)                               (Sachin Singh Rajput)
             Judge                                              Judge

Soma




       6 AIR 1994 SC 1631

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Chattisgarh High Court