AARTI DHOBI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, as alleged in the petition, was minor at the time of alleged incident and belongs to SC/ST category, became victim and subjected to the crime for which punishment has been prescribed under the Indian Penal Code. On being denied the financial aid by the impugned order dtd. 15/4/2021 passed by the respondents, the petitioner victim has approached this Court seeking financial aid as provided under clause-44(ii) of the Schedule annexed with the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules of 1995).

(2.) Brief facts as reflected from the material on record are that with regard to the crime committed on the victim, uncle of the victim lodged FIR bearing No.07/2017 at Police Station Renwal, Jaipur Rural for the offence under Ss. 363, 366, 376, 120-B of IPC, Sec. 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act of 2012) and Sec. 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act of 1989). After registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced and after detailed investigation, the police found the offences, as alleged in the FIR, to be made out against the accused persons and submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons before the competent court of jurisdiction for the offences under Sec. 363, 366-A, 376(D), 120 of IPC and Sec. 5/6 of the Act of 2012 and Sec. 3(1)(w) & 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989. Subsequently, the Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012, District Jaipur heard the arguments and on consideration of the material on record, framed charges against the accused persons for the offences under Ss. 363, 366, 376(D) of IPC, Sec. 5/6 of the Act of 2012 and Sec. 3(2)(v) & 3-1(w) of the Act of 1989. Thereafter, the petitioner applied online to the respondents seeking relief in terms of the provisions of the Rules of 1995. The request/matter of the petitioner victim was placed before the respondent-Deputy Director, Social Justice and Empowerment Department, who vide order/recommendation dtd. 15/4/2021 denied to grant relief to the petitioner victim as prayed for. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the recommendation/order dtd. 15/4/2021.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have wrongly passed the order dtd. 15/4/2021. Counsel further submits that the respondents are not justified in denying the relief to the petitioner as the legislation enacted by the Legislature to provide relief to the victims in such matters, is a beneficial legislation and the petitioner victim is entitled and ought to have been granted the financial aid in terms of the provisions of the Rules of 1995.