The Delhi High Court, while deciding a 25-year-old assault case, has drawn attention to a separate issue that had remained outside the focus of the proceedings for years, i.e the victim was herself a minor employed as domestic help in the house of a Revenue Service officer. The Court observed that this aspect had been conveniently overlooked by both the police and the Court, and directed that the victim be considered for compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme.
The case arose from an incident on October 17, 2000, when the appellant, a former domestic servant of the Revenue Service officer, went to his former employer’s house in Vasant Kunj. The employer was not present, but the minor domestic worker, Meena, opened the door. The appellant had apparently gone looking for a diary containing his salary records and, after failing to find it, assaulted her first with a thapi and then with a knife. She suffered five injuries.
Also Read: Supreme Court Stays FIR Against Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay Over Alleged Road-Rage Incident
Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav upheld his conviction under Section 324 IPC, rejecting challenges based on inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony, absence of motive and lack of fingerprints connecting him to the weapons. The Court found her testimony trustworthy and supported by the medical evidence.
While considering the sentence, however, the Court took note of the quarter-century delay, the appellant’s clean antecedents, his age at the time of the offence and his present circumstances. It therefore modified the one-year rigorous imprisonment sentence and released him on one year’s probation on furnishing a ₹20,000 bond.
It was in this context that the Court highlighted the victim’s other ordeal. It noted that she was only around 11–12 years old and had been employed as domestic help despite the prohibition on employing children in domestic work. The Court termed this a “very sorry state of affairs” and said the issue had either been ignored or had escaped the attention of the police and the Court.
The Court accordingly directed the Delhi State Legal Services Authority to consider the victim for suitable compensation and rehabilitation under the Victim Compensation Scheme, observing that she was a victim on two counts: she was assaulted and was also employed as a child labourer.
