Introduction:
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in Victim v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 222], delivered a significant judgment addressing the manner in which compensation under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 should be disbursed. The decision, rendered by Justice Vishal Mishra, reflects the Court’s concern over the recurring trend of victims allegedly entering into compromises with accused persons or turning hostile during trial after receiving substantial compensation from the State. The Court observed that compensation paid under the statutory scheme is drawn from the public exchequer and, therefore, cannot be permitted to be misused through practices that undermine the administration of criminal justice.
The petitioner, a member of the Scheduled Tribe community, approached the High Court by filing a writ petition seeking the release of 75% of the compensation amount of ₹5 lakh under Clause 44(i) of the SC/ST Rules, 1995. The criminal case arose from a complaint lodged on 22 September 2022, alleging offences of rape under Section 376 and criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, along with offences punishable under Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Following the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent Trial Court. According to the petitioner, despite the filing of the charge-sheet, only ₹75,000 had been disbursed, whereas the Rules entitled the petitioner to receive 75% of the total compensation at that stage.
The case presented the Court with an important issue concerning the balance between protecting the statutory rights of victims to receive timely compensation and safeguarding public funds from potential misuse. While the compensation scheme under the SC/ST Act is intended to provide immediate financial assistance and rehabilitation to victims of atrocities, the State argued that a disturbing pattern had emerged in which certain complainants allegedly accepted compensation and later resiled from their statements during trial, thereby frustrating the prosecution and defeating the object of the legislation. The Court was therefore required to examine whether additional safeguards could be imposed before directing payment of compensation.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner contended that the compensation provided under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 is a statutory entitlement intended to provide immediate financial relief to victims belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who suffer atrocities. It was argued that the Rules clearly prescribe different stages for payment of compensation so that victims receive financial assistance during the course of the criminal proceedings rather than after the conclusion of the trial.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the applicable compensation scheme, a portion of the compensation becomes payable after the medical examination and confirmation of the medical report, another substantial portion becomes payable upon filing of the charge-sheet, and the remaining amount is released after the conclusion of the trial. Since the investigating agency had already completed the investigation and filed the charge-sheet before the Trial Court, the petitioner asserted that she had acquired a legal right to receive 75% of the sanctioned compensation. However, despite satisfying the prescribed conditions, only ₹75,000 had been released. The petitioner therefore sought a direction to the authorities to disburse the remaining compensation in accordance with the statutory Rules.
The petitioner further argued that the authorities could not withhold compensation by imposing conditions that were not expressly contemplated under the Rules. The object of the compensation scheme is to provide rehabilitation, financial security, and support to victims of serious offences. Delaying or denying compensation would defeat the beneficial purpose of the legislation and impose additional hardship upon victims who are already suffering the consequences of serious crimes.
The State, on the other hand, opposed the writ petition by drawing the Court’s attention to what it described as a recurring trend in prosecutions under the SC/ST Act. The State submitted that in numerous cases, FIRs are registered, investigations are completed, and substantial compensation is released to victims in accordance with the Rules. However, after receiving the compensation, victims allegedly enter into private compromises with the accused or subsequently turn hostile before the Trial Court. As a result, prosecutions often fail because the principal witness no longer supports the allegations.
The State argued that the compensation released under the statutory scheme is paid entirely from public funds. Therefore, it carries with it an obligation to ensure that such funds are not misused. According to the State, if victims are permitted to receive compensation and later abandon the prosecution without consequence, the very object of the compensation scheme is undermined and valuable public resources are wasted. Consequently, the State requested the Court to direct the petitioner to furnish an affidavit undertaking that she would neither compromise with the accused nor turn hostile during the trial.
The State maintained that such a safeguard would protect the integrity of criminal prosecutions while ensuring that compensation reaches only those victims who continue to pursue the legal process in good faith. The proposed undertaking, according to the State, would also discourage the filing of false or motivated complaints solely for the purpose of obtaining financial benefits under the statutory scheme.
Court’s Judgment:
Justice Vishal Mishra considered the rival submissions and acknowledged the beneficial object of the compensation scheme framed under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Rules. The Court recognised that the legislation seeks to provide immediate financial assistance and rehabilitation to victims belonging to vulnerable communities who suffer offences motivated by caste-based discrimination and violence. At the same time, the Court observed that the statutory purpose cannot be permitted to be defeated through misuse of public funds.
The Court took serious note of the State’s submission regarding the increasing number of cases in which victims allegedly compromise with accused persons or turn hostile after receiving compensation. Although the Court did not make any general finding regarding every prosecution under the Act, it considered the concern raised by the State to be sufficiently significant to warrant the introduction of safeguards before further disbursement of compensation.
The Court observed that compensation under the SC/ST Act is not paid by private individuals but from the public exchequer. Every rupee released under the statutory scheme represents public money intended to achieve the legislative objective of supporting genuine victims of atrocities. Consequently, the Court emphasised that public funds cannot be allowed to be misused merely to complete formal compliance with the provisions of the Rules while the prosecution itself collapses because of compromises or hostile witnesses.
Keeping these considerations in view, the Court directed the petitioner to submit an affidavit before the competent authorities stating that she would neither enter into any compromise with the accused persons nor turn hostile before the Trial Court. The Court further directed that the petitioner should undertake to fully cooperate with the prosecution and contest the criminal proceedings arising from her complaint.
The Court made it clear that until such an affidavit is submitted, no further amount of compensation should be released. However, once the undertaking is furnished, the competent authorities were directed to consider the petitioner’s claim for compensation and release the admissible amount in accordance with the statutory Rules.
The Court went a step further by addressing the consequences of any future breach of the undertaking. It observed that if, after receiving compensation, the victim subsequently turns hostile before the Trial Court, the compensation amount received should be recovered and refunded to the State. Such a direction, according to the Court, would ensure accountability in the utilisation of public funds while discouraging abuse of the statutory compensation mechanism.
Additionally, the Court directed the Trial Court to remain vigilant during the criminal proceedings. It observed that if the victim ultimately turns hostile or enters into a compromise with the accused, the Trial Court may consider initiating appropriate proceedings by taking cognizance against the victim for allegedly instituting a false and frivolous criminal case, depending upon the facts and circumstances emerging during trial.
The judgment is significant because it attempts to strike a balance between two competing public interests. On one hand, the SC/ST Act and Rules are welfare-oriented legislations intended to protect victims of caste-based atrocities by ensuring prompt financial assistance. On the other hand, the Court recognised the State’s concern that public money should not be disbursed in circumstances where the criminal justice process is later frustrated due to compromises or hostile testimony.
Although the Court did not dilute the statutory right of eligible victims to receive compensation, it introduced an additional procedural safeguard intended to preserve the integrity of criminal prosecutions and protect the public exchequer. The decision reflects the judiciary’s effort to ensure that the objectives of the SC/ST Act are fulfilled while preventing abuse of the compensation mechanism.
The ruling is likely to generate considerable legal discussion because it raises important questions regarding the relationship between victim compensation, witness conduct during criminal trials, and the conditions that may legitimately be imposed before statutory benefits are released. It also underscores the judiciary’s continuing emphasis on balancing victim rights with accountability in the administration of public welfare schemes.