Whether a person is entitled to get compensation if he is acquitted in Rape case?

The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The principal prayer of the petitioner is to direct the respondent no.1 to pay an amount of Rs.200 crores towards compensation for ruining the life of the petitioner in the matter of his illegal arrest, detention and wrongful confinement for a long period of seven years though he is not responsible for the commission of offence of which he was charged. 2 The petitioner had also preferred criminal application no.92 of 2016 and seeking interim compensation in the sum of Rs.100 crores during the pendency of the petition before this Court.

We have already made observations hereinabove that the petitioner has not succeeded in attributing any malafides or malice to the investigating machinery or to the victim who had impleaded him as an accused in the said proceedings. The attributes of malafides or malice are not reflected either in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses at the instance of the defence, nor in the statement of the accused which was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Nor there were any arguments in that regard before the trial Court or before the Appellate Court. It is reiterated hereinabove. We have already observed that the petitioner was entitled for the benefit of doubt as observed by the Appellate Court on account of infirmities in the evidence or the doubt expressed by the Court with regard to the identification of the petitioner - accused. It is well settled that relief in exercise of powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India can be granted only when it is established  that there was or has been infringement of fundamental right of the citizen and no other form of appropriate redressal by the Court in the facts and circumstances of the case is possible. It is well settled that the Courts are empowered to award the compensation where it is a established fact that infringement was patent and incontrovertible and the violation was gross. The petitioner was subjected to trial by following procedure established by law. For all the reasons mentioned hereinabove, we are not inclined to award compensation as prayed by the petitioner and, we are, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the petition. The grant of compensation or the relief sought by the petitioner seeking investigation is also not warranted in the present proceeding.

Bombay High Court

Gopal S/O. Ramdas Shetye vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 May, 2017

Bench: S.C. Dharmadhikari

Read full judgment here: Click here

Print Page