TEKAN ALIAS TEKRAM v. STATE OF M.P (NOW CHHATTISGARH)

‘ REPORTABLE’ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 884 OF 2015 TEKAN ALIAS TEKRAM …. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (NOW CHHATTISGARH) … RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T M.Y. EQBAL, J. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16 th January, 2014 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 2554 of 1997 affirming the judgment dated 29.11.1997 passed by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Sessions Trial No. 342 of 1996, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to 7 years R.I., the accused-appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence. 1

2. This is a case where the prosecutrix, who is blind and an illiterate girl, was subjected to sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the prosecutrix was residing with her father at Village Nandini Khundini. Her mother had left and married somewhere else and, thereafter, the prosecutrix was living with her three brothers Nand Kumar, Iswari and Baldau. Along with brother of prosecutrix Iswari, the accused Tikendra was also studying. Because of the friendship, the accused used to visit the house of the prosecutrix and was in conversation with her. It is the case of the prosecution that when the prosecutrix used to remain alone in her house, the accused used to visit her and expressed her that he is in love with her. Further, the case of the prosecution is that about one year before the incident, the accused came to the house of the prosecutrix when she was alone. Thereafter, the accused had told her that he is in love with her and will marry her and wanted to commit sexual intercourse with her. The prosecutrix tried to avoid it since 2

she was a blind girl, but the prosecutrix was told by the accused that he will marry her and will give her all support and, therefore, she submitted herself to the accused. Thereafter, the accused committed sexual intercourse with her. It is the case of the prosecution that whenever the prosecutrix remained alone in the house, the accused used to come and commit sexual intercourse with her. By such course of action, when the prosecutrix became pregnant, the prosecutrix told the accused to marry her. At that point of time, the accused stopped visiting the house of the prosecutrix. Subsequent to it, the incident was disclosed to the father of the prosecutrix who called the meeting of the Panchayat in the Village. In the Panchayat, the accused was also called. It is the case of the prosecution that in the Panchayat, the accused admitted the fact that he had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix but refused to marry her and left the Panchayat. It was the specific case of prosecution that though the prosecutrix was blind, she could recognize the accused person by his voice and by touch. 3

4. It reveals that the matter was investigated by the police and the prosecutrix was also subjected to medical examination and finally a charge-sheet was filed under Section 376 IPC. Number of witnesses was examined from the prosecution side including the Doctor who submitted the medical examination report (Ex.P2 and P3) and the radiologist who obtained X-Ray of the prosecutrix and gave his report (Ex. P4) confirming the age of the prosecutrix as approximately 18 years. The prosecutrix was also examined as PW-1, who narrated the entire incident and the manner in which she was subjected to sexual abuse. In her evidence, she has categorically stated that she is blind but she could recognize a person by his voice. She has also stated that the accused-appellant had told her that he will keep her. She has further stated that the accused committed rape on her and, thereafter, whenever she used to stay alone in the house the accused-appellant used to come and committed sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage. It has further come in evidence that when the prosecutrix became pregnant the accused stopped visiting her 4

house. She has further stated that after the incident was disclosed by her the accused was called before the Panchayat. 5. The trial court after appreciating the entire evidence including the evidence of the Doctor and the persons who attended the Panchayat and the medical reports, recorded a finding and held that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant. Accordingly, the accused was convicted under Section 376 IPC and was sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment. 6. As against the judgment of the trial court, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court being Criminal Appeal No.2554 of 1997. The High Court examined the facts and re-appreciated the entire evidence adduced from the side of the prosecution and recorded an independent finding and affirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent State. We have also meticulously examined the finding recorded by the two courts on the basis of the evidence 5

brought on record by the prosecution side. After giving our anxious consideration to the matter we are of the definite view that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity or illegality in the judgment passed by the two courts. Hence, the judgment of conviction must sustain in law. 8. Now the question that arises for consideration is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the prosecutrix is entitled to victim compensation and, if so, to what extent? During the course of hearing, this Court by order dated 01.07.2015 directed the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State to file a copy of the Victim Compensation Scheme applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh and to inquire about the financial status of the victim, her brothers and also of the accused-appellant. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the State has filed an additional affidavit giving details of the inquiries made to ascertain the financial status of the victim and the accused 6

and also has placed on record a copy of Notification/ Compensation Scheme. 9. From the inquiry, it reveals that the victim (now aged about 37 years) lives alone in Village Nandini Kundini, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. She is unmarried and lives in a kuccha house. She has two brothers who lives separately from her. One of the brothers Ishwari Sahu lives in a different village Dhour (distance 12 kms from Nandini Kundini). Another brother Baldau Sahu lives is district Bhila (distance 22 kms from Nandini Kundini) and works as a daily-labourer. She receives a pension of Rs.300/- per month from the State being a person with disability. She is also a BPL card holder which entitles her 35kg rice per month at the rate of Rs.1/- per kg. and free salt. The financial status of victim’s brothers is also not good. 10. It further reveals from the inquiry regarding financial status of the accused that the accused lives in the same village i.e. Nandini Kundini where the victim lives. He is married and 7

has four children. Mother of the accused also lives with him. He has inherited about 2 acres of land being ancestral property which is also the source of his livelihood. Further, the wife of the accused is a blue card holder which entitles the family to receive 35 kg. rice per month at the rate of Rs.2/- per kg. The accused lives in a pucca house. 11. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the State of Chhattisgarh has notified Victim Compensation Scheme under Section 357-A, Cr.P.C for providing fund for the purpose of compensation to the victim or his dependents who has have suffered loss or injury as a result of crime and who require rehabilitation. Relevant part of the Schedule appended to the aforesaid notification is extracted herein for easy reference. SCHEDULE S.No . Details of Loss or Injury Maximum Limit of Compensation 4. Rape of Minor 50,000/- 5. Rape 25,000/- 6. Rehabilitation 20,000/- 8

12. Before dealing with the present matter it is pertinent to mention briefly the amount payable to the rape victim and for rehabilitation under Victim Compensation Schemes notified by the other State Governments and Union Territories under Section 357A of the Cr.P.C., 1973. Sr.no . State/ UT Details of Loss or Injury Maximum Limit of Compensation(Rs.) 1. Arunachal Pradesh Rape 50,000/- Rehabilitation 20,000/- 3. Assam Rape 75,000/- Rape of Minor/Gang Rape 1,00,000/- 5. Bihar Rape 50,000/- 6. Delhi Rape 3,00,000/- Rehabilitation 20,000/- 8. Goa In case of injury causing, severe mental agony to women and child (eg. Rape cases etc.) 10,00,000/- (Ten Lakh) 9. Gujarat Rape 1,00,000/- Rehabilitation 50,000/- 11. Haryana Rape 3,00,000/- Medical expenses on account of injury 15,000/- 13. Himachal Pradesh Rape 50,000/- 9

14. Jammu & Kashmir Rape of minor or rape in police custody 1,00,000/- Rape 50,000/- 16. Karnataka Rape of minor 3,00,000/- Rape other than minor 1,50,000/- 18. Kerala (50 % extra if the victim is 14 years or less) Rape 3,00,000/- Rehabilitation 1,00,000/- 20. Maharashtra No amount for the offence of rape Nil 21. Manipur Rape of Minor 30,000/- Rape 20,000/- Rehabilitation 20,000/- 24. Nagaland Rape of Minor 1,00,000/- Rape 50,000/- Rehabilitation 50,000/- 27. Odisha Loss or injury causing severe mental agony to women and child victims in case like Human Trafficking 10,000/- 28. Rajasthan Rape of Minor 3,00,000/- Rape 2,00,000/- Rehabilitation 1,00,000/- 31. Sikkim Rape 50,000/- Rehabilitation 30,000/- 33. Tripura Rape 50,000/- of which Rs.5,000/- shall be paid after preliminary verification of the complaint and the 10

balance amount shall be sanctioned on the filling of charge sheet. 34. Uttar Pradesh Rape 2,00,000/- 35. Uttarakhand Rape of Minor 2,50,000/- Rape 2,00,000/- Rehabilitation in case of rape victim 1,00,000/- 38. West Bengal Rape of Minor 30,000/- Rape 20,000/- Rehabilitation 20,000/- 41. UT of Chandigarh Rape 3,00,000/- Rehabilitation 20,000/- 43. UT of Dadar and Nagar Haveli Rape 3,00,000/- Rehabilitation 20,000/- 45. UT of Daman Rape 3,00,000/- Rehabilitation 20,000/- 47. UT of Puducherry Rape 3,00,000/- Rehabilitation 20,000/- 13. Perusal of the aforesaid victim compensation schemes of different States and the Union Territories, it is clear that no uniform practice is being followed in providing compensation to the rape victim for the offence and for her rehabilitation. 11

This practice of giving different amount ranging from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the offence of rape under section 357A needs to be introspected by all the States and the Union Territories. They should consider and formulate a uniform scheme specially for the rape victims in the light of the scheme framed in the State of Goa which has decided to give compensation up to Rs.10,00,000/-. 14. While going through different schemes for relief and rehabilitation of victims of rape, we have also come across one Scheme made by the National Commission of Women (NCW) on the direction of this court in Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum vs. Union of India and Ors . [Writ Petition (Crl) No. 362/93], whereby this Court inter alia had directed the National Commission for Women to evolve a “scheme” so as to wipe out the tears of unfortunate victims of rape. This scheme has been revised by the NCW on 15 th April 2010. The application under this scheme will be in addition to any application that may be made under Section 357, 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure as provided in paragraph 22 of the Scheme. Under this scheme maximum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Three 12

lakhs) can be given to the victim of the rape for relief and rehabilitation in special cases like the present case where the offence is against an handicapped woman who required specialized treatment and care. 15. Coming to the present case in hand, victim being physically disadvantaged, she was already in a socially disadvantaged position which was exploited maliciously by the accused for his own ill intentions to commit fraud upon her and rape her in the garb of promised marriage which has put the victim in a doubly disadvantaged situation and after the waiting of many years it has worsened. It would not be possible for the victim to approach the National Commission for Women and follow up for relief and rehabilitation. Accordingly the victim, who has already suffered a lot since the day of the crime till now, needs a special rehabilitation scheme. 16. Mr. Atul Jha, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-State, on instructions received from the Superintendent of Police, District Durg, submitted that for the rehabilitation of the victim the Home Secretary, Department of 13

Home has taken decision to keep the victim in Nari Niketan, to provide her food, clothes and shelter and the monthly pension of Rs.300/- throughout her life. For the said rehabilitation programme, the State has to incur about Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month. 17. Indisputably, no amount of money can restore the dignity and confidence that the accused took away from the victim. No amount of money can erase the trauma and grief the victim suffers. This aid can be crucial with aftermath of crime. 18. The victim, being in a vulnerable position and who is not being taken care of by anyone and having no family to support her either emotionally or economically, we are not ordering the respondent-State to give her any lump sum amount as compensation for rehabilitation as she is not in a position to keep and manage the lump sum amount. From the records, it is evident that no one is taking care of her and she is living alone in her Village. Accordingly, we in the special facts of this case are directing the respondent-State to pay Rs.8,000/- per month till her life time, treating the same to be an interest fetched on a fixed deposit of Rs.10,00,000/-. By this, the 14

State will not be required to pay any lump sum amount to the victim and this will also be in the interest of the victim. 19. In the result, we dismiss the appeal having no merit and issue the following directions:- 1) All the States and Union Territories shall make all endeavour to formulate a uniform scheme for providing victim compensation in respect of rape/sexual exploitation with the physically handicapped women as required under the law taking into consideration the scheme framed by the State of Goa for rape victim compensation; 2) So far as this case is concerned, the respondent-State shall pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as victim compensation to the victim who is physically handicapped, i.e. blind, till her life time. ……………………… .J. (M.Y.Eqbal) ……………………… .J. (Arun Mishra) New Delhi February 11, 2016 15

ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.8 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 884/2015 TEKAN ALIAS TEKRAM Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF M.P (NOW CHHATTISGARH) Respondent(s) Date : 11/02/2016 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of judgment today. For Appellant(s) Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv. Mr. T. Baskar Gowtham, Adv. Mr. Vishal Arun,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Atul Jha, adv. Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha,Adv. Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra. We dismiss the appeal having no merit and issue the following directions :- 1) All the States and Union Territories shall make all endeavour to formulate a uniform scheme for providing victim compensation in respect of rape/sexual exploitation with the physically handicapped women as required under the law taking into consideration the scheme framed by the State of Goa for rape victim compensation; 2. So far as this case is concerned, the respondent-State shall pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as victim compensation to the victim 16

-2- who is physically handicapped, i.e. blind, till her life time. [INDU POKHRIYAL] [SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR] COURT MASTER A.R.-CUM-P.S. (Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file) 17

house. She has further stated that after the incident was disclosed by her the accused was called before the Panchayat. 5. The trial court after appreciating the entire evidence including the evidence of the Doctor and the persons who attended the Panchayat and the medical reports, recorded a finding and held that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant. Accordingly, the accused was convicted under Section 376 IPC and was sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment. 6. As against the judgment of the trial court, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court being Criminal Appeal No.2554 of 1997. The High Court examined the facts and re- appreciated the entire evidence adduced from the side of the prosecution and recorded an independent finding and affirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent State. We have also meticulously examined the finding recorded by the two courts on the basis of the evidence 5

13. Himachal Pradesh Rape 50,000/- 14. Jammu & Kashmir Rape of minor or rape in police custody 1,00,000/- Rape 50,000/- 16. Karnataka Rape of minor 3,00,000/- Rape other than minor 1,50,000/- 18. Kerala (50 % extra if the victim is 14 years or less) Rape 3,00,000/- Rehabilitation 1,00,000/- 20. Maharashtra No amount for the offence of rape Nil 21. Manipur Rape of Minor 30,000/- Rape 20,000/- Rehabilitation 20,000/- 24. Nagaland Rape of Minor 1,00,000/- Rape 50,000/- Rehabilitation 50,000/- 27. Odisha Loss or injury causing severe mental agony to women and child victims in case like Human Trafficking 10,000/- 28. Rajasthan Rape of Minor 3,00,000/- Rape 2,00,000/- Rehabilitation 1,00,000/- 31. Sikkim Rape 50,000/- Rehabilitation 30,000/- 33. Tripura Rape 50,000/- of which Rs.5,000/- shall be 10

paid after preliminary verification of the complaint and the balance amount shall be sanctioned on the filling of charge sheet. 34. Uttar Pradesh Rape 2,00,000/- 35. Uttarakhand Rape of Minor 2,50,000/- Rape 2,00,000/- Rehabilitation in case of rape victim 1,00,000/- 38. West Bengal Rape of Minor 30,000/- Rape 20,000/- Rehabilitation 20,000/- 41. UT of Chandigarh Rape 3,00,000/- Rehabilitation 20,000/- 43. UT of Dadar and Nagar Haveli Rape 3,00,000/- Rehabilitation 20,000/- 45. UT of Daman Rape 3,00,000/- Rehabilitation 20,000/- 47. UT of Puducherry Rape 3,00,000/- Rehabilitation 20,000/- 13. Perusal of the aforesaid victim compensation schemes of different States and the Union Territories, it is clear that no 11

uniform practice is being followed in providing compensation to the rape victim for the offence and for her rehabilitation. This practice of giving different amount ranging from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the offence of rape under section 357A needs to be introspected by all the States and the Union Territories. They should consider and formulate a uniform scheme specially for the rape victims in the light of the scheme framed in the State of Goa which has decided to give compensation up to Rs.10,00,000/-. 14. While going through different schemes for relief and rehabilitation of victims of rape, we have also come across one Scheme made by the National Commission of Women (NCW) on the direction of this court in Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum vs. Union of India and Ors . [Writ Petition (Crl) No. 362/93], whereby this Court inter alia had directed the National Commission for Women to evolve a “scheme” so as to wipe out the tears of unfortunate victims of rape. This scheme has been revised by the NCW on 15 th April 2010. The 12

application under this scheme will be in addition to any application that may be made under Section 357, 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure as provided in paragraph 22 of the Scheme. Under this scheme maximum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Three lakhs) can be given to the victim of the rape for relief and rehabilitation in special cases like the present case where the offence is against an handicapped woman who required specialized treatment and care. 15. Coming to the present case in hand, victim being physically disadvantaged, she was already in a socially disadvantaged position which was exploited maliciously by the accused for his own ill intentions to commit fraud upon her and rape her in the garb of promised marriage which has put the victim in a doubly disadvantaged situation and after the waiting of many years it has worsened. It would not be possible for the victim to approach the National Commission for Women and follow up for relief and rehabilitation. Accordingly the victim, who has already suffered a lot since 13

the day of the crime till now, needs a special rehabilitation scheme. 16. Mr. Atul Jha, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-State, on instructions received from the Superintendent of Police, District Durg, submitted that for the rehabilitation of the victim the Home Secretary, Department of Home has taken decision to keep the victim in Nari Niketan, to provide her food, clothes and shelter and the monthly pension of Rs.300/- throughout her life. For the said rehabilitation programme, the State has to incur about Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month. 17. Indisputably, no amount of money can restore the dignity and confidence that the accused took away from the victim. No amount of money can erase the trauma and grief the victim suffers. This aid can be crucial with aftermath of crime. 14

18. The victim, being in a vulnerable position and who is not being taken care of by anyone and having no family to support her either emotionally or economically, we are not ordering the respondent-State to give her any lump sum amount as compensation for rehabilitation as she is not in a position to keep and manage the lump sum amount. From the records, it is evident that no one is taking care of her and she is living alone in her Village. Accordingly, we in the special facts of this case are directing the respondent-State to pay Rs.8,000/- per month till her life time, treating the same to be an interest fetched on a fixed deposit of Rs.10,00,000/-. By this, the State will not be required to pay any lump sum amount to the victim and this will also be in the interest of the victim. 19. In the result, we dismiss the appeal having no merit and issue the following directions:- 1) All the States and Union Territories shall make all endeavour to formulate a uniform scheme for providing victim compensation in respect of rape/sexual exploitation with the physically handicapped women as required under the law taking into consideration the 15

scheme framed by the State of Goa for rape victim compensation; 2) So far as this case is concerned, the respondent- State shall pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as victim compensation to the victim who is physically handicapped, i.e. blind, till her life time. ……………………… .J. (M.Y.Eqbal) ……………………… .J. (Arun Mishra) New Delhi February 11, 2016 16

\232\224â¬ Ü REPORTABLEâ¬ "!IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 884 OF 2015TEKAN ALIAS TEKRAM â¬ ¦. APPELLANT(S)VERSUSSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH(NOW CHHATTISGARH) â¬ ¦ RESPONDENT(S)J U D G M E N T M.Y. EQBAL, J.Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16 th January,2014 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in CriminalAppeal No. 2554 of 1997 affirming the judgment dated29.11.1997 passed by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge,Durg, in Sessions Trial No. 342 of 1996, whereby the appellanthas been convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to 7years R.I., the accused-appellant has preferred this appealchallenging the conviction and sentence.12. This is a case where the prosecutrix, who is blind and anilliterate girl, was subjected to sexual intercourse on thepromise of marriage.3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that theprosecutrix was residing with her father at Village NandiniKhundini. Her mother had left and married somewhere elseand, thereafter, the prosecutrix was living with her threebrothers Nand Kumar, Iswari and Baldau. Along with brotherof prosecutrix Iswari, the accused Tikendra was also studying.Because of the friendship, the accused used to visit the houseof the prosecutrix and was in conversation with her. It is thecase of the prosecution that when the prosecutrix used toremain alone in her house, the accused used to visit her andexpressed her that he is in love with her. Further, the case ofthe prosecution is that about one year before the incident, theaccused came to the house of the prosecutrix when she wasalone. Thereafter, the accused had told her that he is in lovewith her and will marry her and wanted to commit sexualintercourse with her. The prosecutrix tried to avoid it since2she was a blind girl, but the prosecutrix was told by theaccused that he will marry her and will give her all supportand, therefore, she submitted herself to the accused.Thereafter, the accused committed sexual intercourse withher. It is the case of the prosecution that whenever theprosecutrix remained alone in the house, the accused used tocome and commit sexual intercourse with her. By suchcourse of action, when the prosecutrix became pregnant, theprosecutrix told the accused to marry her. At that point oftime, the accused stopped visiting the house of theprosecutrix. Subsequent to it, the incident was disclosed tothe father of the prosecutrix who called the meeting of thePanchayat in the Village. In the Panchayat, the accused wasalso called. It is the case of the prosecution that in thePanchayat, the accused admitted the fact that he hadcommitted sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix but refusedto marry her and left the Panchayat. It was the specific case ofprosecution that though the prosecutrix was blind, she couldrecognize the accused person by his voice and by touch.34. It reveals that the matter was investigated by the policeand the prosecutrix was also subjected to medical examinationand finally a charge-sheet was filed under Section 376 IPC.Number of witnesses was examined from the prosecution sideincluding the Doctor who submitted the medical examinationreport (Ex.P2 and P3) and the radiologist who obtained X-Ray

of the prosecutrix and gave his report (Ex. P4) confirming theage of the prosecutrix as approximately 18 years. Theprosecutrix was also examined as PW-1, who narrated theentire incident and the manner in which she was subjected tosexual abuse. In her evidence, she has categorically statedthat she is blind but she could recognize a person by his voice.She has also stated that the accused-appellant had told herthat he will keep her. She has further stated that the accusedcommitted rape on her and, thereafter, whenever she used tostay alone in the house the accused-appellant used to comeand committed sexual intercourse with her on the pretext ofmarriage. It has further come in evidence that when theprosecutrix became pregnant the accused stopped visiting her4house. She has further stated that after the incident wasdisclosed by her the accused was called before the Panchayat.5. The trial court after appreciating the entire evidenceincluding the evidence of the Doctor and the persons whoattended the Panchayat and the medical reports, recorded afinding and held that the prosecution was able to prove theguilt of the accused-appellant. Accordingly, the accused wasconvicted under Section 376 IPC and was sentenced to 7 yearsrigorous imprisonment.6. As against the judgment of the trial court, the appellantfiled an appeal before the High Court being Criminal AppealNo.2554 of 1997. The High Court examined the facts andre-appreciated the entire evidence adduced from the side ofthe prosecution and recorded an independent finding andaffirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court.7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and therespondent State. We have also meticulously examined thefinding recorded by the two courts on the basis of the evidence5brought on record by the prosecution side. After giving ouranxious consideration to the matter we are of the definite viewthat the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of theappellant beyond all reasonable doubt. We, therefore, do notfind any infirmity or illegality in the judgment passed by thetwo courts. Hence, the judgment of conviction must sustainin law.8. Now the question that arises for consideration is as towhether in the facts and circumstances of the case theprosecutrix is entitled to victim compensation and, if so, towhat extent? During the course of hearing, this Court byorder dated 01.07.2015 directed the learned counselappearing for the respondent-State to file a copy of the VictimCompensation Scheme applicable in the State of Chhattisgarhand to inquire about the financial status of the victim, herbrothers and also of the accused-appellant. Pursuant to theaforesaid order, learned counsel for the State has filed anadditional affidavit giving details of the inquiries made toascertain the financial status of the victim and the accused6and also has placed on record a copy of Notification/Compensation Scheme.9. From the inquiry, it reveals that the victim (now agedabout 37 years) lives alone in Village Nandini Kundini,District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. She is unmarried and lives in akuccha house. She has two brothers who lives separately fromher. One of the brothers Ishwari Sahu lives in a differentvillage Dhour (distance 12 kms from Nandini Kundini).Another brother Baldau Sahu lives is district Bhila (distance22 kms from Nandini Kundini) and works as a daily-labourer.She receives a pension of Rs.300/- per month from the Statebeing a person with disability. She is also a BPL card holderwhich entitles her 35kg rice per month at the rate of Rs.1/-

per kg. and free salt. The financial status of victimâ¬ "!s brothersis also not good.10. It further reveals from the inquiry regarding financialstatus of the accused that the accused lives in the same villagei.e. Nandini Kundini where the victim lives. He is married and7has four children. Mother of the accused also lives with him.He has inherited about 2 acres of land being ancestralproperty which is also the source of his livelihood. Further, thewife of the accused is a blue card holder which entitles thefamily to receive 35 kg. rice per month at the rate of Rs.2/- perkg. The accused lives in a pucca house. 11. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the State ofChhattisgarh has notified Victim Compensation Scheme underSection 357-A, Cr.P.C for providing fund for the purpose ofcompensation to the victim or his dependents who has havesuffered loss or injury as a result of crime and who requirerehabilitation. Relevant part of the Schedule appended to theaforesaid notification is extracted herein for easy reference.SCHEDULES.No. Details of Loss or Injury Maximum Limit ofCompensation4. Rape of Minor 50,000/-5. Rape 25,000/-6. Rehabilitation 20,000/-812. Before dealing with the present matter it is pertinent tomention briefly the amount payable to the rape victim and forrehabilitation under Victim Compensation Schemes notified bythe other State Governments and Union Territories underSection 357A of the Cr.P.C., 1973.Sr.no. State/ UT Details of Loss or Injury Maximum Limit ofCompensation(Rs.)1. ArunachalPradesh Rape 50,000/-Rehabilitation 20,000/-3.Assam Rape 75,000/-Rape of Minor/Gang Rape 1,00,000/-5. Bihar Rape 50,000/-6. Delhi Rape 3,00,000/-Rehabilitation 20,000/-8. Goa In case of injury causing,severe mental agony towomen and child (eg. Rapecases etc.) 10,00,000/-(Ten Lakh)9.Gujarat Rape 1,00,000/-Rehabilitation 50,000/-11. Haryana Rape 3,00,000/-Medical expenses onaccount of injury 15,000/-13. HimachalPradesh Rape 50,000/-914. Jammu &Kashmir Rape of minor or rape inpolice custody 1,00,000/-Rape 50,000/-16. Karnataka Rape of minor 3,00,000/-Rape other than minor 1,50,000/-18. Kerala(50 % extra if

the victim is14 years orless) Rape 3,00,000/-Rehabilitation 1,00,000/-20. Maharashtra No amount for the offence ofrape Nil21. Manipur Rape of Minor 30,000/-Rape 20,000/-Rehabilitation 20,000/-24. Nagaland Rape of Minor 1,00,000/-Rape 50,000/-Rehabilitation 50,000/-27. Odisha Loss or injury causingsevere mental agony towomen and child victims incase like Human Trafficking 10,000/-28. Rajasthan Rape of Minor 3,00,000/-Rape 2,00,000/-Rehabilitation 1,00,000/-31. Sikkim Rape 50,000/-Rehabilitation 30,000/-33. Tripura Rape 50,000/- of whichRs.5,000/- shall bepaid after preliminaryverification of thecomplaint and the10balance amount shallbe sanctioned on thefilling of charge sheet.34. UttarPradesh Rape 2,00,000/-35. Uttarakhand Rape of Minor 2,50,000/-Rape 2,00,000/-Rehabilitation in case ofrape victim 1,00,000/-38. West Bengal Rape of Minor 30,000/-Rape 20,000/-Rehabilitation 20,000/-41. UT ofChandigarh Rape 3,00,000/-Rehabilitation 20,000/-43. UT of Dadarand NagarHaveli Rape 3,00,000/-Rehabilitation 20,000/-45. UT of Daman Rape 3,00,000/-Rehabilitation 20,000/-47. UT ofPuducherry Rape 3,00,000/-Rehabilitation 20,000/-13. Perusal of the aforesaid victim compensation schemes ofdifferent States and the Union Territories, it is clear that nouniform practice is being followed in providing compensationto the rape victim for the offence and for her rehabilitation.11This practice of giving different amount ranging fromRs.20,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for theoffence of rape under section 357A needs to be introspected byall the States and the Union Territories. They should considerand formulate a uniform scheme specially for the rape victimsin the light of the scheme framed in the State of Goa whichhas decided to give compensation up to Rs.10,00,000/-. 14. While going through different schemes for relief andrehabilitation of victims of rape, we have also come across oneScheme made by the National Commission of Women (NCW)

on the direction of this court in Delhi Domestic WorkingWomenâ¬ "!s Forum vs. Union of India and Ors . [Writ Petition(Crl) No. 362/93], whereby this Court inter alia had directedthe National Commission for Women to evolve a â¬ Sschemeâ¬ \235 soas to wipe out the tears of unfortunate victims of rape. Thisscheme has been revised by the NCW on 15 th April 2010. Theapplication under this scheme will be in addition to anyapplication that may be made under Section 357, 357A of theCode of Criminal Procedure as provided in paragraph 22 of theScheme. Under this scheme maximum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Three12lakhs) can be given to the victim of the rape for relief andrehabilitation in special cases like the present case where theoffence is against an handicapped woman who requiredspecialized treatment and care. 15. Coming to the present case in hand, victim beingphysically disadvantaged, she was already in a sociallydisadvantaged position which was exploited maliciously by theaccused for his own ill intentions to commit fraud upon herand rape her in the garb of promised marriage which has putthe victim in a doubly disadvantaged situation and after thewaiting of many years it has worsened. It would not bepossible for the victim to approach the National Commissionfor Women and follow up for relief and rehabilitation.Accordingly the victim, who has already suffered a lot sincethe day of the crime till now, needs a special rehabilitationscheme. 16. Mr. Atul Jha, learned counsel appearing for theRespondent-State, on instructions received from theSuperintendent of Police, District Durg, submitted that for therehabilitation of the victim the Home Secretary, Department of13Home has taken decision to keep the victim in Nari Niketan, toprovide her food, clothes and shelter and the monthly pensionof Rs.300/- throughout her life. For the said rehabilitationprogramme, the State has to incur about Rs.8,000/- toRs.10,000/- per month. 17. Indisputably, no amount of money can restore the dignityand confidence that the accused took away from the victim.No amount of money can erase the trauma and grief the victimsuffers. This aid can be crucial with aftermath of crime.18. The victim, being in a vulnerable position and who is notbeing taken care of by anyone and having no family to supporther either emotionally or economically, we are not ordering therespondent-State to give her any lump sum amount ascompensation for rehabilitation as she is not in a position tokeep and manage the lump sum amount. From the records, itis evident that no one is taking care of her and she is livingalone in her Village. Accordingly, we in the special facts of thiscase are directing the respondent-State to pay Rs.8,000/- permonth till her life time, treating the same to be an interestfetched on a fixed deposit of Rs.10,00,000/-. By this, the14State will not be required to pay any lump sum amount to thevictim and this will also be in the interest of the victim. 19. In the result, we dismiss the appeal having no merit andissue the following directions:-1) All the States and Union Territories shall make allendeavour to formulate a uniform scheme for providingvictim compensation in respect of rape/sexualexploitation with the physically handicapped women asrequired under the law taking into consideration thescheme framed by the State of Goa for rape victimcompensation;

2) So far as this case is concerned, therespondent-State shall pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- permonth as victim compensation to the victim who isphysically handicapped, i.e. blind, till her life time.â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦ .J.(M.Y.Eqbal)â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦â¬ ¦ .J.(Arun Mishra)New DelhiFebruary 11, 201615ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.8 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCriminal Appeal No(s). 884/2015TEKAN ALIAS TEKRAM Appellant(s) VERSUSSTATE OF M.P (NOW CHHATTISGARH) Respondent(s)Date : 11/02/2016 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of judgment today.For Appellant(s) Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv. Mr. T. Baskar Gowtham, Adv. Mr. Vishal Arun,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Atul Jha, adv. Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha,Adv. Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal pronounced the judgmentof the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice ArunMishra.We dismiss the appeal having no merit and issue thefollowing directions :-1) All the States and Union Territories shallmake all endeavour to formulate a uniformscheme for providing victim compensation inrespect of rape/sexual exploitation with thephysically handicapped women as required underthe law taking into consideration the schemeframed by the State of Goa for rape victimcompensation;2. So far as this case is concerned, therespondent-State shall pay a sum of Rs.8,000/-per month as victim compensation to the victim16-2-who is physically handicapped, i.e. blind, tillher life time. [INDU POKHRIYAL] [SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR] COURT MASTER A.R.-CUM-P.S. (Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)17

ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No.884/2015 TEKAN ALIAS TEKRAM Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF M.P (NOW CHHATTISGARH) Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for bail and exemption from filing O.T.) Date : 10/02/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y. EQBAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA For Appellant(s) Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vikranth Nilesh Goyal, Adv. For Mr. Vishal Arun,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Atul Jha, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv. For Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Arguments concluded. Judgment and orders reserved. List the matter on 11.02.2016 for pronouncement of judgment and orders. (Sanjay Kumar-II) (Indu Pokhriyal) Court Master Court Master

bITEM NO.101 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCriminal Appeal No.884/2015TEKAN ALIAS TEKRAM Appellant(s) VERSUSSTATE OF M.P (NOW CHHATTISGARH) Respondent(s)(With appln.(s) for bail and exemption from filing O.T.)Date : 10/02/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y. EQBAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRAFor Appellant(s) Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vikranth Nilesh Goyal, Adv. For Mr. Vishal Arun,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Atul Jha, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv. For Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Arguments concluded. Judgment and orders reserved. List the matter on 11.02.2016 for pronouncement of judgmentand orders. (Sanjay Kumar-II) (Indu Pokhriyal) Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No.884/2015 TEKAN ALIAS TEKRAM Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF M.P (NOW CHHATTISGARH) Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for bail and exemption from filing O.T.) Date : 04/02/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y. EQBAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA For Appellant(s) Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv. Mr. T. Baskar Gowtham, Adv. Mr. Vishal Arun,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Atul Jha, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv. For Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R As prayed for, list the matter on 10.02.2016 at the top of the Board to enable the counsel for the respondent-State for finally taking instructions without seeking further adjournment in the matter, as to why the victim lady who is also blind should not get a monthly payment of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) during her life period instead of giving her one time lumpsum compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh only). (Sanjay Kumar-II) (Indu Pokhriyal) Court Master Court Master

ÚITEM NO.102 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCriminal Appeal No.884/2015TEKAN ALIAS TEKRAM Appellant(s) VERSUSSTATE OF M.P (NOW CHHATTISGARH) Respondent(s)(With appln. (s) for bail and exemption from filing O.T.)Date : 04/02/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y. EQBAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRAFor Appellant(s) Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv. Mr. T. Baskar Gowtham, Adv. Mr. Vishal Arun,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Atul Jha, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv. For Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R As prayed for, list the matter on 10.02.2016 at the top of theBoard to enable the counsel for the respondent-State for finallytaking instructions without seeking further adjournment in thematter, as to why the victim lady who is also blind should not geta monthly payment of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) duringher life period instead of giving her one time lumpsum compensationof Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh only). (Sanjay Kumar-II) (Indu Pokhriyal) Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.112 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No.884/2015 TEKAN ALIAS TEKRAM Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF M.P (NOW CHHATTISGARH) Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for bail and exemption from filing O.T.) Date : 03/02/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y. EQBAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA For Appellant(s) Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv. Mr. T. Baskar Gowtham, Adv. For Mr. Vishal Arun,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Atul Jha, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv. For Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R As jointly prayed for, list the matter on 04.02.2016. (Sanjay Kumar-II) (Indu Pokhriyal) Court Master Court Master

SECTION II A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 884 OF 2015 WITH CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 15598 OF 2015 (Application from exemption from filing official translation) TEKAN ALIAS TEKRAM ...APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF M.P.(NOW CHATTISGARH) ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT The matter above mentioned was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 28 th September, 2015 when the following order was passed : “ Heard. Learned counsel for the respondentState has filed an affidavit and place on record a copy of the notification/compensation scheme. He seeks time to take instructions whether apart from the benefits under the Scheme, the victim in this case can be rehabilitated in any other manner. Post the application for bail along with criminal appeal in the month of February 2016 for final hearing.” It is submitted that pursuant to the above order Counsel for the sole Respondent/State has not filed any documents, so far. It is further submitted that service of Notice of lodgment of Petition of appeal is complete. Original Record from the High Court as well as Trial Coaurt has been received. The said Original Record will be available in the Court room for reference of the Hon'ble Court. The matter is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this Office Report. Dated this the 1 st Day of February, 2016. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to : Mr. Vishal Arun, Advocate Mr. D.K. Sinha, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR hs/c2

®ITEM NO.112 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCriminal Appeal No.884/2015TEKAN ALIAS TEKRAM Appellant(s) VERSUSSTATE OF M.P (NOW CHHATTISGARH) Respondent(s)(With appln. (s) for bail and exemption from filing O.T.)Date : 03/02/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y. EQBAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRAFor Appellant(s) Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv. Mr. T. Baskar Gowtham, Adv. For Mr. Vishal Arun,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Atul Jha, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv. For Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R As jointly prayed for, list the matter on 04.02.2016. (Sanjay Kumar-II) (Indu Pokhriyal) Court Master Court Master

ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 884/2015 TEKAN ALIAS TEKRAM Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF M.P (NOW CHHATTISGARH) Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for Bail and office report) Date : 28/09/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA For Appellant(s) Mr. D. Bharat Kumar,Adv. Mr. Sayooj Mohandas M.,Adv. Mr. T. Baskar Gowtham,Adv. Mr. Vishal Arun,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Atul Jha,Adv. Mr. Sandeep Jha,Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has filed an affidavit and place on record a copy of the notification/compensation scheme. He seeks time to take instructions whether apart from the benefits under the Scheme, the victim in this case can be rehabilitated in any other manner. Post the application for bail along with criminal appeal in the month of February 2016 for final hearing. (MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

\224 ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 884/2015 TEKAN ALIAS TEKRAM Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF M.P (NOW CHHATTISGARH) Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for Bail and office report) Date : 28/09/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA For Appellant(s) Mr. D. Bharat Kumar,Adv. Mr. Sayooj Mohandas M.,Adv. Mr. T. Baskar Gowtham,Adv. Mr. Vishal Arun,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Atul Jha,Adv. Mr. Sandeep Jha,Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has filed an affidavit and place on record a copy of the notification/compensation scheme. He seeks time to take instructions whether apart from the benefits under the Scheme, the victim in this case can be rehabilitated in any other manner. Post the application for bail along with criminal appealSignature Not Verified in the month of February 2016 for final hearing.Digitally signed byMahabir SinghDate: 2015.09.2816:34:22 ISTReason: (MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 884/2015 TEKAN ALIAS TEKRAM Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF M.P (NOW CHHATTISGARH) Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for bail) Date : 07/09/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA For Appellant(s) Mr. D.Bharat Kumar, Adv. Mr. T.Bhaskar Gowtham, Adv. Mr. Vishal Arun,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Atul Jha, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that he has pursuant to this Court's Order dated 01.07.2015 filed an additional affidavit which is not on record. Registry to place the same on record. Post along with the additional affidavit two weeks hence. (Shashi Sareen) (Veena Khera) AR-cum-PS Court Master

SECTION II A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 884 OF 2015 TEKAN ALIAS TEKRAM ...APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF M.P.(NOW CHATTISGARH) ...RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT The Special Leave Petition(Crl.)No. 3739 of 2014 was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 1 st July, 2015 when the following order was passed : “Heard Leave granted. Learned counsel for the respondent State of Chhattisgarh seeks time to file a copy of VictimCompensation Scheme applicable in the State and take instructions as to the amount of compensation admissible to a rape victim. He shall also take instruction about the financial status of the victim, her brother as also that of the appellant herein. List for consideration of suspension of sentence after two months. Needful be done in the meantime.” It is submitted that Service of Notice of Lodgement of Petition of Appeal is complete on sole Respondent/State of M.P. (now Chattisgarh) and is represented through Mr. D.K. Sinha, Advocate. It is further submitted that Original Records from the High Court as well as from the Trial Court have not been received, so far. It is further submitted pursuant to the above order , Counsel for the Respondent/State has not filed any documents, so far. As directed above, the matter is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this Office Report. Dated this the 4 th day of September, 2015. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to : Mr. Vishal Arun, Advocate Mr. D.K. Sinha, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR hs/c2

" ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 884/2015 TEKAN ALIAS TEKRAM Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF M.P (NOW CHHATTISGARH) Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for bail) Date : 07/09/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA For Appellant(s) Mr. D.Bharat Kumar, Adv. Mr. T.Bhaskar Gowtham, Adv. Mr. Vishal Arun,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Atul Jha, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that he has pursuant to this Court's Order dated 01.07.2015 filed an additional affidavit which is not on record. Registry to place the same on record. Post along with the additional affidavit two weeks hence. (Shashi Sareen) (Veena Khera) AR-cum-PSSignature Not Verified Court MasterDigitally signed byShashi SareenDate: 2015.09.0710:43:56 ISTReason:

ITEM NO.48 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3739/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16/01/2014 in CRLA No. 2554/1997 passed by the High Court Of Chhatisgarh At Bilaspur) TEKAN ALIAS TEKRAM Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF M.P (NOW CHHATTISGARH) Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for bail and office report) Date : 01/07/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr. D. Bharat Kumar,Adv. Mr. Joydip Roy,Adv. Mr. T. Baskar Gowtham,Adv. Mr. Vishal Arun,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Atul Jha,Adv. Mr. Sandeep Jha,Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard. Leave granted. Learned counsel for the respondent-State of Chhattisgarh seeks time to file a copy of the Victim Compensation Scheme applicable in the State and take instructions as to the amount of compensation admissible to a rape victim. He shall also take instruction about the financial status of the victim, her brother as also that of the appellant herein. List for consideration of suspension of sentence after two months. Needful be done in the meantime. (MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

f ITEM NO.48 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3739/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16/01/2014 in CRLA No. 2554/1997 passed by the High Court Of Chhatisgarh At Bilaspur) TEKAN ALIAS TEKRAM Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF M.P (NOW CHHATTISGARH) Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for bail and office report) Date : 01/07/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr. D. Bharat Kumar,Adv. Mr. Joydip Roy,Adv. Mr. T. Baskar Gowtham,Adv. Mr. Vishal Arun,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Atul Jha,Adv. Mr. Sandeep Jha,Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard. Leave granted. Learned counsel for the respondent-State of Chhattisgarh seeks time to file a copy of the Victim Compensation Scheme applicable in the State and take instructions as to the amount of compensation admissible to a rape victim. He shall also take instruction about the financial status of the victim, her brother as also that of the appellant herein. List for consideration of suspension of sentence afterSignature Not Verified two months. Needful be done in the meantime.Digitally signed byMahabir SinghDate: 2015.07.0215:10:00 ISTReason: (MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

ITEM NO.39 REGISTRAR COURT. 1 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR MRS. RACHNA GUPTA Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3739/2014 TEKAN ALIAS TEKRAM Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF M.P (NOW CHHATTISGARH) Respondent(s) (with appln.(s) for bail and office report) Date : 31/03/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vishal Arun,Adv. Mr. Sayooj Mohandas, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Atul Jha, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Sole respondent has already filed the counter affidavit. Petition stands complete. Registry to process to list the same before the Hon'ble Court, as per rules. (RACHNA GUPTA) Registrar

SECTION IIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL(CRL.)NO. 3739 OF 2014 WITH CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 9844 & 9845 OF 2014 (Applications for bail & exemption from filing official translation) TEKAN ALIAS TEKRAM ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF M. P. (NOW CHHATTISGARH) ... RESPONDENT OFFICE REPORT The matter above-mentioned was listed before Hon’ble Court on 9 th May, 2014 when the Court was pleased to pass the following order: “Issue notice.” Accordingly, show cause notice was issued to sole respondent i.e. State through Registered A.D. Post. It is submitted that Mr. D.K. Sinha, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama/Appearance on behalf of sole respondent i.e. State. Service of show cause notice is complete. The matter above-mentioned is listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office Report. DATED this the 8 th day of August , 2014. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Copy to: 1. Mr. Vishal Arun, Advocate 2. Mr. D.K. Sinha, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR C1/rc

R ITEM NO.60 COURT NO.10 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3739/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16/01/2014 in CRLA No. 2554/1997 passed by the High Court Of Chhatisgarh At Bilaspur) TEKAN ALIAS TEKRAM Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF M.P (NOW CHHATTISGARH) Respondent(s) (With appln. (s) for bail and office report) Date : 11/08/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv. Mr. S. Mohandas, Adv. Mr. Vishal Arun ,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Atul Jha, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha ,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the State seeks some time to file counter affidavit. To be listed after pleadings are complete. (MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (JASWINDER KAUR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTERSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byMeenakshi KohliDate: 2014.08.1311:57:58 ISTReason:

\236ITEM NO.15 Court No.4 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).3739/2014(From the judgement and order dated 16/01/2014 in CRLA No.2554/1997,of The HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR)TEKAN ALIAS TEKRAM Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF M.P (NOW CHHATTISGARH) Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for bail,exemption from filing O.T. and officereport ))Date: 09/05/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPANFor Petitioner(s) Mr. D.Bharat Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sayooj Mohandas, Adv. Mr. Vishal Arun,Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Issue notice. (Shashi Sareen) (Saroj Saini) Court Master Court Master

\212ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.13 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)... 2014 CRLMP.NO(s). 8726(From the judgement and order dated 16/01/2014 in CRLA No.2554/1997, of The HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR)TEKAN ALIAS TEKRAM Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF M.P (NOW CHHATTISGARH) Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for exemption from surrendering and office report)Date: 28/04/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA (In Chambers)For Petitioner(s) Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sayooj Mohandas M., Adv. Mr. Vishal Arun, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R On perusal of office report it transpires that the petitioner has already surrendered to custody and filed proof thereof. In view of the aforesaid, the special leave petition be listed before the appropriate Bench. (NAVEEN KUMAR) (SAROJ SAINI) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

TEKAN ALIAS TEKRAM v. STATE OF M.P (NOW CHHATTISGARH)

Full Judgment Text

Search This Case

Supreme Court Resources

High Court Case Status