Reshma vs State of Rajasthan

R.S. Chauhan, J.—On 15-7-2005, this Court received a letter from Kumari Reshma, wherein she claimed that on 26-4-2004 around 4.30 PM while she was returning to her house, one Anwar s/o Mohd. Irfan threw acid on her. Consequently, her face and her chest were severely burnt. Ever since then, she is undergoing treatment at Jaipur. Her father, a labourer, is engaged in manufacturing of bidis. Thus, he is financially extremely weak. He cannot afford her treatment at Jaipur. She has further claimed that while she has been granted only Rs. 10,000/- as financial aid by the Government, in the case of Shivani Jadeja-also a case of acid throwing on a young girl-the Government had borne the entire medical expenses. Hence, she has claimed that she is being discriminated in a hostile manner. Her fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is being violated. She has further stated that a case u/s 326 IPC was registered against Mr. Anwar Hussain. According to her, Mr. Anwar Hussain has already been convicted for the said offence. He has been sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and has been imposed with a fine of Rs. 2 lacs. Lastly, she has prayed that the Government be directed to grant her a compensation of Rs. 1 lac, so that she may look after her medical treatment. Along with the letter she has sent few photographs, clearly showing the extent of damage to her face and chest and her pathetic condition.

Vide order dated 10-12-2008, this letter was treated as Letter Petition by this Court, this Court appointed Mr. Ashish Sharma as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the petitioner.

Mr. Ashish Sharma, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions:

Firstly, safety of a citizen is a responsibility of the State. Therefore, the State should bear the cost of medical treatment and should compensate the victim.

Since crime against woman are on the increase, it is the duty of the State to tackle the said crime. However, in the present case, the State has failed to do so. Therefore, the State is liable to compensate the petitioner.

In the case of Shivani Jadeja, a case of acid throwing which occurred in Jaipur, the State had borne the entire cost of medical treatment including expenses incurred by her for medicines. But in the present case, the petitioner has been granted a compensation of merely Rs. 10,000/-. Therefore, the State has adopted two different yardsticks to deal with cases which are similarly situated. Hence, the petitioner''s right under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India is being violated.

The petitioner''s father happens to be a poor labourer, working in a bidi factory. Therefore, she comes from the lower economic strata of the Society. As her father is financially crippled and is unable to carry out her treatment, he has borrowed money from friends and relatives to the tune of Rs. 1 lac. Therefore, the least the Government can do is to compensate the petitioner by granting her Rs. 1 lac.

On the other hand, Mr. Nasir Ali Naquvi, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, has contended that the act of acid throwing was an individual act committed by Anwar Hussain. The State has vigilantly recorded the First Information Report, submitted challan, and prosecuted Anwar Hussain. Thus, the State has done its duty towards the petitioner. He further stated that the State has borne the expenses of treatment of the petitioner at SMS Hospital Jaipur. Further the trial court has imposed a fine of Rs. 2 lacs on Anwar Hussain with the direction to the State to pay the said amount to the petitioner since she is the victim of the crime. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel the petitioner no longer needs any financial aid. Thus, the State is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. Secondly, there is no scheme available with the State for payment of compensation to woman victim of a crime. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation from the State.

In rejoinder, Mr. Ashish Sharma, has argued that although a fine of Rs. 2 lacs has been imposed upon the accused, but the accused has not paid the fine. The petitioner has also not received a single penny out of the amount of Rs. 10,000/-. Further, although there may not be any specific scheme for payment of compensation to woman victim of crime, but nonetheless Chief Minister Relief fund does exist. Therefore, he has prayed that this Court may direct the State to make payment of Rs. 1 lac to the petitioner so as to cover the cost of her medicine.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

In the Constitution "We the people" have established a democratic socialist republic. The republic is a welfare State to protect and promote the interest and rights of the people. The relationship between the State and its citizen is that of a trust. Therefore, the State is the trustee of the people. The State should be dedicated to uplifting and ameliorating the condition of the people. Simultaneously it is the duty of the State to protect the people from crime by maintaining law and order. Although the State cannot be held liable to pay compensation for every breach of law and order, but cases of heinous crime, specially where the woman is the victim, the State must show its sense of humanism. In the present case, not only the petitioner is a woman, but most importantly, she belongs to a poor family, which is forced to eak out its living for its sheer survival. Financial crushed, socially ignored, the family deserves to be uplifted from its pitiable condition. The Chief Minister Relief Fund is, in fact, created to meet out urgent situation, be that of an individual, or of the people at large.

Article 41 of the Constitution imposes a duty on the State to make effective provision for securing public assistance in case of sickness and disableness. Article 47 also imposes a duty on the State to improve the standard of living of its people. Thus, a constitutional duty has been imposed on the State to look after the welfare of the victim of crime which leads to their disablement and which adversely affects the standard of living. These two directive principles have to be read in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution, which ensures the right to life. Right to life, not only imposes a constitutional duty on the State to protect the life of people, but most importantly, imposes a duty on the State to ameliorate the condition of the life of the people. The concept of social justice permeates the Constitution like the golden rays of the sun. In order to eliminate the darkness which has fallen on the family of petitioner, it is imperative that the light of constitutional provision should permeate through their lives. The dreams of the Constitution cannot be confined merely to the preamble of the Constitution but need to be concretized, need to be implemented, and need to be diffused through the lives of our brotherens, who are poor and faceless, voiceless and hapless.

For these reasons, the writ petition is, hereby, allowed. The State Government is directed to release Rs. 1 lac from the Chief Minister Relief Fund to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.