Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Legal Services ... vs State Of Karnataka on 28 February, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:8913
CRL.RP No. 810 of 2022
C/W CRL.RP No. 802 of 2022
CRL.RP No. 804 of 2022
AND 3 OTHERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.810 OF 2022
C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 802 OF 2022
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 804 OF 2022
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 814 OF 2022
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 815 OF 2022
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 816 OF 2022
IN CRL.RP No. 810/2022:
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY MEMBER SECRETARY
KARNATAKA STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY
Digitally signed
1ST FLOOR, NYAYA DEGUGA BUILDING
by DEVIKA M H. SIDDAIAH ROAD,
Location: HIGH BENGALURU-560 027
COURT OF ...PETITIONER
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. VIGNESH A. SREENIVAS., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR,
TUMAKURU RURAL POLICE, TUMAKURU
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGLURU-560001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:8913
CRL.RP No. 810 of 2022
C/W CRL.RP No. 802 of 2022
CRL.RP No. 804 of 2022
AND 3 OTHERS
2. SHWETHA
D/O NARASIMHAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/O MELLENGAHALLI
TUMAKURU TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
KARNATAKA.
3. KODILINGAPPA
@ KODILINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/O MELLENGAHALLI
TUMAKURU TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
KARNATAKA.
4. GANGADHARA
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/O CHIKKADODDAVADI
KOLALA HOBLI,
KORATAGERE TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
KARNATAKA.
5. SREENIVAS N
S/O NARASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/O MELLENGAHALLI
KORA HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
KARNATAKA.
6. RAJESH M.N.
S/O NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/O BILIKEMPANAHALLI, BIDADI
RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT
KARNATAKA.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:8913
CRL.RP No. 810 of 2022
C/W CRL.RP No. 802 of 2022
CRL.RP No. 804 of 2022
AND 3 OTHERS
7. DARSHAN S.G.,
S/O GOVINDARAJU
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/O NEAR NALANDA CONVENT
SAPTHAGIRI BADAVANE,
TUMAKURU CITY,
TUMAKUR DISTRICT
KARNATAKA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA B., ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
NOTICE TO R3 TO R7 IS DISPENSED WITH
VIDE ORDER DATED 09.09.2022)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397(1) R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO ALTER THE ORDER DATED 11.01.2021 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-
1, TUMAKURU IN SPL.C.298/2015 TO THE EXTENT THAT THE
DIRECTION GIVEN TO THE DLSA, TUMAKURU FOR GRANT OF
PREDETERMINED COMPENSATION AMOUNT OF RS. 1,00,000/-
TO THE VICTIM IS SUSPENDED AND REVERSED ON THE
GROUNDS URGED HEREIN ABOVE.
IN CRL.RP NO. 802/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. KARNATAKA STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY MEMBER SECRETARY
KARNATAKA STATE LEGAL SERVICES
AUTHORITY, 1ST FLOOR,
NYAYA DEVULA BUILDING,
H.SIDDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU-560027
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIGNESH A. SREENIVAS, ADVOCATE)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:8913
CRL.RP No. 810 of 2022
C/W CRL.RP No. 802 of 2022
CRL.RP No. 804 of 2022
AND 3 OTHERS
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR
KALLAMBELLA POLICE, TUMAKURU
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. SMT. LAKSHMI
D/O SRI. MALLIKARUJUNA AND
SMT. MANJAMMA
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
BETTANAHALLI, KALLAMBELLA HOBLI,
SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT
KARNATAKA.
3. SRI PUTTARAJU
S/O LATE NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
BETTANAHALLI, KALLAMBELLA HOBLI,
SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA B., ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI. SREEPADARAJA G., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH
VIDE ORDER DATED 09.09.2022)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397(1) R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO ALTER THE ORDER DATED 02.03.2021
PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, FTSC-1, TUMAKURU IN SPL.C.NO.338/2020 TO THE
EXTENT THAT THE DIRECTION GIVEN TO THE DLSA,
TUMAKURU FOR GRANT OF PREDETERMINED
COMPENSATION AMOUTN OF RS.3,00,000/- TO THE
VICTIM IS SUSPENDED AND REVERSED ON THE GROUND
URGED HEREIN ABOVE AND GRANT OTHER SUCH RELIEFS
AND MAKE ANY AMENDMENTS OR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL
OR INCIDENTAL ORDERS THAT MAY BE JUST OR PROPER.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:8913
CRL.RP No. 810 of 2022
C/W CRL.RP No. 802 of 2022
CRL.RP No. 804 of 2022
AND 3 OTHERS
IN CRL.RP NO. 804/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. KARNATAKA STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY MEMBER SECRETARY
KARNATAKA STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY
1ST FLOOR NYAYA DEVULA BUILDING
H. SIDDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU-560027
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIGNESH A. SREENIVAS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR
KUNIAGAL POLICE, TUMAKURU
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. SMT. NAZIMA W/O PARAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/O MAVINAHALLI, C.S. PRUA HOBLI,
GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA.
3. PARAMESH S/O LATE SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/O MAVINAHALLI, C.S.PURA HOBLI,
GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA B., ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH
VIDE ORDER DATED 02.09.2022)
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:8913
CRL.RP No. 810 of 2022
C/W CRL.RP No. 802 of 2022
CRL.RP No. 804 of 2022
AND 3 OTHERS
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397(1) R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALTER THE ORDER
DATED 16.03.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1, TUMAKURU IN
SPL.C.NO.462/2016 TO THE EXTENT THAT THE DIRECTION
GIVEN TO THE DLSA, TUMAKURU FOR GRANT TO
PREDETERMINED COMPENSATION AMOUNT OF
RS.3,00,000/- TO THE VICTIM IS SUSPENDED AND
REVERSE ON THE GROUNDS URGED HEREIN ABOVE AND
GRANT OTHER SUCH RELIEFS AND MAKE ANY AMENDMENT
OR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL ORDERS THAT
MAY BE JUST OR PROPER.
IN CRL.RP NO. 814/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. KARNATAKA STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY MEMBER SECRETARY
KARNATAKA STATE LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY
1ST FLOOR, NYAYA DEGULA BUILDING
H. SIDDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU -560 027.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIGNESH A. SREENIVAS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR
KOLALA POLICE, TUMAKURU
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU -560001.
2. HAMALATHA D/O GOVINDARAJU
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
YARAPPANAHATTI
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:8913
CRL.RP No. 810 of 2022
C/W CRL.RP No. 802 of 2022
CRL.RP No. 804 of 2022
AND 3 OTHERS
KORATEGERE TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
KARNATAKA.
3. NAGARAJU R.
S/O RANGADHAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/O THIMMANAYAKANAHALLI
KOLALA HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT, KARNATAKA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA B., ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED
NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH
VIDE ORDER DATED 09.09.2022)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397(1) R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO ALTER THE ORDER DATED 16.01.2021
PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, FTSC-1, TUMAKURU IN SPL.C.NO.264/2019 TO THE
EXTENT THAT THE DIRECTION GIVEN TO THE DLSA,
TUMAKURU FOR GRANT OF PREDETERMINED
COMPENSATION AMOUNT OF RS.3,00,000/- TO THE
VICTIM IS SUSPENDED AND REVERSED ON THE GROUNDS
URGED HEREIN.
IN CRL.RP NO. 815/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. KARNATAKA STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY MEMBER SECRETARY
KARNATAKA STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY
1ST FLOOR, NYAYA DEGULA BUILDING
H. SIDDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU-560027.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIGNESH A. SREENIVAS, ADVOCATE)
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:8913
CRL.RP No. 810 of 2022
C/W CRL.RP No. 802 of 2022
CRL.RP No. 804 of 2022
AND 3 OTHERS
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR
ROBERTSONPET POLICE STATION, KGF
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. XXX
D/O SRI. KUMAR AND
SMT.PUNITHA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
PARANDAHALLI
ROBERTSONPET
KGF.
3. DILEEP BABU U.,
S/O UMAPATHY J
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/O NO.508, 3RD BLOCK
PARANDAHALLI
ROBERTSONPET
KGF.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA B., ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SMT. PADMINI S., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH
VIDE ORDER DATED 09.09.2022)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397(1) R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO ALTER THE ORDER DATED 26.08.2021
PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, FTSC-1, (POCSO) IN KOLAR IN SPL.C.196/2018 TO
THE EXTENT THAT THE DIRECTION GIVEN TO THE DLSA,
KOLAR FOR GRANT OF PREDETERMINED COMPENSATION
AMOUNT OF RS. 3,00,000/- TO THE VICTIM IS SUSPENDED
AND REVERSED ON THE GROUNDS URGED HEREIN ABOVE.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:8913
CRL.RP No. 810 of 2022
C/W CRL.RP No. 802 of 2022
CRL.RP No. 804 of 2022
AND 3 OTHERS
IN CRL.RP NO. 816/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. KARNATAKA STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY MEMBER SECRETARY
KARNATAKA STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY
1ST FLOOR, NYAYA DEGULA BUILDING
H. SIDDAIAH ROAD,
BENGALURU-560027.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIGNESH A. SREENIVAS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR,
KODIGENAHALLI POLICE, TUMAKURU,
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. SMT. BHAVYASHREE
D/O SRI. NANJUNDAPPA AND SMT. ARUNA,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
GOUTHAMNAGAR ALSO AT
PARTHIHALLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK,
TUMAKURU.
3. SRI RAMA S/O HANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/O SRI RANGARAJANAHALLI VILLAGE,
PARGI MANDAL, HINDUPURA TALUK,
ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA B., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. G.S.VENKAT SUBBARAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH
VIDE ORDER DATED 09.09.2022)
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8913
CRL.RP No. 810 of 2022
C/W CRL.RP No. 802 of 2022
CRL.RP No. 804 of 2022
AND 3 OTHERS
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397(1) R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO ALTER THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2021
PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, FTSC-1, TUMAKURU IN SPL.C.322/2020 TO THE
EXTENT THAT THE DIRECTION GIVEN TO THE DLSA,
TUMAKURU FOR GRANT OF PREDETERMINED
COMPENSATION AMOUNT OF RS. 3,00,000/- TO THE
VICTIM IS SUSPENDED AND REVERSED ON THE GROUNDS
URGED HEREIN ABOVE.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
These revision petitions are filed by the Karnataka
State Legal Services Authority (for short 'KSLSA')
questioning the respective orders passed by the Trial Court
in the Special Cases Nos.298/2015, 338/2020, 462/2016,
264/2019, 196/2018 and 322/2020, wherein the Trial
Court directed the District Legal Services Authority (for
short 'DLSA') to pay the compensation in all the matters.
2. The very contention of the KSLSA is that the
scheme of Victims' Compensation Scheme is to pay the
compensation and the same must be in accordance with
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8913
AND 3 OTHERS
the notification dated 22.02.2012. The counsel for the
KSLSA brought to notice of this Court sub-clause (3) of
Clause 6 of the notification with regard to the eligibility for
compensation, wherein it is held that the victim/claimant
shall co-operate with the police and prosecution during the
investigation and trial of the case. The counsel in support
of this notification, relied upon the judgment of this court
passed in W.P.No.24462/2019 in the case of XXXX vs
THE MEMBER SECRETARY, KARNATAKA STATE LEGAL
SERVICES AUTHORITY and brought to the notice of this
Court paragraph 4 of the said judgment, wherein this
Court discussed notification dated 22.02.2012 including
Clause 6 (3) and Clause 7 (10). In Clause 7(10), it is held
that if a victim or his dependants have obtained an order
sanctioning compensation under this scheme of
false/vexatious/fabricated complaint which is so held by
the trial court, the compensation awarded shall be
recovered with 15% interest per annum and in paragraph
5, an observation is made that from the perusal of the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8913
AND 3 OTHERS
relevant clauses of the scheme, it is evident that the
victim has to cooperate with the prosecution during the
investigation and the trial and the complaint failed by her
should not be fabricated. In the instant case, admittedly,
during the course of the trial, the petitioner as well as her
father were declared hostile; in other words, they violated
Clause 6(3) of the scheme and therefore, were not entitled
to seek compensation and the State Legal Services
Authority has rightly held that the petitioner is not entitled
to pay the compensation. Hence, the order passed by the
State Legal Services Authority appears to have been
passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner and natural justice would not apply to a case
where an admitted fact only one conclusion is possible.
3. The counsel also relied upon the decision of the
Division Bench of this Court passed in
W.A.No.3868/2019 in the case of MANJULA M vs THE
MEMBER SECRETARY, KARNATAKA STATE LEGAL
SERVICES AUTHORITY, wherein also the First Appellate
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8913
AND 3 OTHERS
Court has confirmed the order of the Trial Court and in
paragraph 3, discussion was made for having passed the
order by the Single Bench and in paragraph 4, discussed
regarding the reasons and upheld the order passed by the
Single Judge.
4. The learned counsel appearing for KSLSA
referring these judgments would vehemently contend that
when the victims or victims' parents have turned hostile in
all the cases, they are not entitled for compensation as
directed by the trial court. Hence, it requires interference
of this court.
5. In Crl.R.P.No.810/2022, this Court has issued
notice against respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 is
served with notice and is unrepresented. In
Crl.R.P.No.802/2022, though respondent No.2 represented
through the counsel, the counsel did not choose to argue
the matter inspite of sufficient opportunity is given and
hence, his argument is taken as nil. In Crl.R.P
No.804/2022, respondent No.2 is served and
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8913
AND 3 OTHERS
unrepresented. In CRL. R.P. No.814/2022, respondent
No.2 is served and unrepresented. In CRL.R.P
No.815/2022, respondent no.2 is served and represented
through the counsel and the counsel submits that in this
case, conviction order has been passed against performing
of child marriage and not convicted for the other offences
and hence, the question of exercising the revisional
jurisdiction does not arise. In Crl. R.P. No.816/2022, the
counsel for respondent No.2 would contend that the
citations which have been relied upon by the counsel for
the petitioner is not applicable to the case on hand and
also contend that the notification also will not come to the
aid of the petitioner. The counsel also brought to notice of
this Court the very proviso of Section 357A and sub-clause
(3) of Cr.P.C and the proviso is very clear that if the trial
Court, at the conclusion of the trial, is satisfied, that the
compensation awarded under Section 357 of Cr.P.C is not
adequate for such rehabilitation, or where the cases end in
acquittal or discharge and the victim has to be
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8913
AND 3 OTHERS
rehabilitated, it may make recommendation for
compensation. The counsel referring this proviso would
vehemently content that Trial Court directed the DLSA to
determine the compensation and no direction was given
and direction was given to deduct if compensation has
already been paid and the very proviso of Section 357A of
Cr.P.C is clear that whether it is acquittal or conviction, the
victims are entitled for compensation. The counsel for
respondent No.2 would vehemently contend that
procedure for grant of compensation is also specified in
clause 7 and DLSA can hold an enquiry and collect
material and then decide the quantum of compensation
payable and procedure also enumerated in Clause 7 and
hence, the question of setting aside the order does not
arise. The counsel also submits that in a case of POCSO,
must grant compensation to the victims. Hence, the orders
of the Trial Court do not require interference of this Court.
6. Per contra the counsel for State would
vehemently contend that the State Government
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8913
AND 3 OTHERS
formulated the scheme to pay the compensation and same
should be paid if only claimant shall co-operate with the
police as well as the prosecution during the investigation
and trail of the case. The counsel submits that in all cases,
parents and victims have not supported the case of the
prosecution and cooperated with the prosecution and
hence, the question of payment of compensation does not
arise.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the
respective parties and also on perusal of the material on
record, the points that would arise for consideration of this
court that
1. Whether the Trial Court committed an error
in directing the DLSA to pay the compensation
and the said order suffers from its legality and
correctness and whether it requires interference
of this Court?
2. What order?
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8913
AND 3 OTHERS
Point No.1:
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and also on perusal of the material on record,
it discloses that in all the cases, it is not in dispute that the
compensation awarded in favour of the victims and
different accusations are made in each and every cases.
The learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl. R.P.
No.810/2022 brought to notice of this Court paragraph 49
of the order of the Trial Court wherein the Trial Court has
made an observation that with regard to awarding
compensation is concerned, though the prosecution has
failed to bring home the guilt of the accused by producing
consisting and corroborative evidence, but as per the
medical evidence, it appears that she was sexually
assaulted and she has suffered mental agony. The victim
may be for various reasons, during the course of cross-
examination has admitted that these accused have not
committed any such offences, contrary to her statement
recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. But it
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8913
AND 3 OTHERS
appears that she was sexually abused and she has
suffered with mental agony.
9. In Crl. R.P. No.802/2022 the learned counsel
for the petitioner brought to notice of this Court paragraph
7 of the order passed by the Trial Court wherein
contention was taken by the accused regarding proving of
the case of the prosecution and also brought to notice of
this Court paragraph 14 wherein an observation is made
that the apart from evidence of this PW1 victim, PW2 who
is the father and PW3 who is the mother of the victim girl,
during the course of their chief examination itself, they
have also stated that during 2019 their daughter victim
girl was completed the age of 18 years. The counsel also
brought to notice of this Court paragraph 28 of the order
of the Trial Court wherein also an observation is made that
PW1 to PW6 were treated as hostile witnesses and
permitted to cross-examine them. Though the prosecution
cross examined all these witnesses, except denial, nothing
is elicited in favour of the version of the prosecution.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8913
AND 3 OTHERS
Hence, on perusal of entire evidence of these PW1 to PW6
who are the material witnesses to the case of prosecution,
absolutely there is no evidence to incriminate the accused
in the alleged offences.
10. In Crl. R.P. No.804/2022, the learned counsel
for the petitioner brought to notice of this Court paragraph
22 of the order of the Trial Court wherein it is held that
when she was brought to the government hospital for
medical examination, she has not stated as this accused
has committed any forcible sexual assault on her. Though
she has also admitted that she has given statement under
sec 164 of Cr.P.C before learned Magistrate, but she has
given such statement at the instance of police and she has
not given such statement voluntarily and turned hostile
and victim girl herself has testified entirely contrary to her
statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C
and brought to notice of this Court paragraph 23 wherein
PW7 who is none other than the mother of the victim girl
has also deposed entirely contrary to her statement
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8913
AND 3 OTHERS
recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C and hence, she also
turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and she has
not given any statement or restatement to the police
about this incident.
11. In Crl. R.P. No.814/2022, the counsel for the
petitioner also brought to notice of this Court paragraph
21 of the order of the Trial Court wherein it is observed
that victim girl herself as PW1 and PW2 and PW4 are the
parents of the victim and pw5 is an independent
circumstantial eye witnesses. PW3 is the informant, who
initiated FIR. But PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW5 during the
course of their evidence have totally turned hostile. PW1
victim has clearly stated that this accused is none other
than the brother of her mother i.e., maternal uncle and in
paragraph 22, the Trial Court observed that PW2 and PW4
who are the parents of this victim girl during the course of
their evidence, they have also stated that their daughter
victim girl studying at 2nd PUC and residing in her
grandparents house at Kolala. But the accused never
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8913
AND 3 OTHERS
committed any such alleged offence against their
daughter. They have not given any statement or re-
statement to the police about this incident. The counsel
also brought to notice of this Court the very deposition
enclosed before the court of victim who turned hostile.
12. In Crl. R.P. No.815/2022, the counsel for the
petitioner also brought to notice of this Court paragraph
11 of the order of the Trial Court wherein it is observed
that victim says that accused is her neighbour and herself
and accused were in love with each other and were taking
through mobile phone and she proposed the accused to
elope for which accused told to speak the elders and with
consent of their parents they can marry and they went to
Tamil Nadu and both of them married in a church and also
brought to notice of this Court paragraph 41 of the order
of the Trial Court wherein also discussed with regard to
the offence punishable under Section 376 is concerned and
it is observed that the victim deposed that both of them
married in a Velangini church and went to the room and
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8913
AND 3 OTHERS
she never become pregnant and accused not caused any
problem to her and she turned hostile to the case of the
prosecution.
13. In Crl. R.P. No.816/2022, the learned counsel
for the petitioner also brought to notice of this Court
paragraph 14 of the order of the Trial Court wherein it is
observed that PW1 and PW5 who are the parents of the
victim girl during the course of their evidence, have also
stated that during 2019 their daughter - victim girl was
completed the age of 20 years. She left the college and is
residing in the house. When these witnesses were treated
as hostile and when the prosecution cross-examined by
suggesting that the victim was aged about 17 years during
2019, but they have specifically denied the said suggestion
and nothing is elicited to prove that as on the date of
incident, the victim was minor and hence, they have
turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. The counsel
for the petitioner also brought to notice of this Court
paragraph 32 wherein also discussed with regard to
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8913
AND 3 OTHERS
recording of statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and
also giving of go by evidence and also observed that she
has also specifically clarified that she has given such
statement at the instance of police under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C. In paragraph 38 the Trial Court observed that the
victim may be for various reasons, during the course of
her evidence, has stated that this accused has not
committed any such offences, contrary to her statement
recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C and
directed the DLSA to pay the compensation in all the cases
and the said respective orders are erroneous.
14. The counsel for the petitioner in support of his
arguments relied upon the judgments as well as
notification referred supra. Having perused the
notification, it is clear that the victim has to cooperate with
the police as well as the prosecution during the
investigation and trial of the case. In the Division Bench
judgment in the case of MANJULA referred supra, this
court comes to the conclusion that if the witnesses turned
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8913
AND 3 OTHERS
hostile including the victim as well as parents, the
question of payment of compensation does not arise.
15. The learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2 in Crl. R.P. No.816/2022 contend that Section 357A
(3) is very clear with regard to payment of compensation
is concerned and determination of compensation. But
while making the compensation, when the scheme is
formulated and notification has been issued as referred
supra, victims and parents also to support the case of the
prosecution. But in all the cases, they have not supported
the case of the prosecution and the Trial Court made an
observation while passing the orders that the victims and
their respective parents have turned hostile. When such
being the case, the Court has to take note of the very
object in bringing amendment to Section 357A of Cr.P.C as
well as formulation of scheme for payment of
compensation. The very objection is to pay the
compensation and rehabilitate the victims who are really
subjected to agony. But here is a case of lodging of
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8913
AND 3 OTHERS
complaint and giving of false evidence before the Court.
Inspite of their statement was recorded before the
Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, they have turned
hostile stating that those statements were given at the
instance of the police. But, it is clear that while recording
164 statement, there was no any force or coercion.
Hence, it is clear that the victims as well as their parents
have turned hostile. However, the Trial Court lost sight of
the very object of awarding of compensation. In the case
on hand, in all the cases, direction was given to pay the
compensation and quantified the same and not given any
direction to DLSA as contended by the counsel for
respondent No.2. But direction was given not for
determination and direction was given to pay the
compensation. Hence, the same is challenged before this
Court by filing these petitions.
16. When sub-clause (3) of Clause 6 is very clear
with regard to cooperation to the police as well as to the
prosecution during the course of investigation and trial,
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8913
AND 3 OTHERS
the counsel for respondent No.2 brought to notice of this
Court Clause -7. No doubt, procedure is enumerated in
Clause 7 and same will not come in the way of assisting
respondent No.2 when the victims as well as parents have
turned hostile and hence, compensation cannot be granted
in respect of the persons who have not come forward to
depose before the Court with regard to the truth, but, all
of them have given contra evidence as the statement
recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C and
completely turned hostile. When such being the case, the
very impugned orders of the Trial Court suffer from its
legality and correctness since Clause 6 of sub-clause (3) to
notification issued by the State when the scheme was
formulated and ordered to rehabilitate the victims. The
counsel for respondent No.2 in Crl. R.P. No.816/2022 also
contend if it is a case of victim is a POCSO, must pay the
compensation. The said contention cannot be accepted
since when victim herself as well as parents who are the
guardian of minor victim deposed contrary to the
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8913
AND 3 OTHERS
statement under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C and
entire evidence is against the contra statement made by
them while lodging the complaint and also recording the
statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the
compensation must be payable to the POCSO victim
cannot be accepted. The scope and ambit of notification
as well as formation of scheme is only to genuine victims
who suffer at the society and also becomes the victim of
the society, they can be compensated and very object is to
protect the victims and not to protect the victims who
takes the advantage lodging a false complaint and also
getting the benefit of compensation by giving false
statement before the Court and falsely deposing before
the Court by turning hostile. The very object will be
defeated if such act is encouraged to the victim. Hence the
order of the Trial Court is not within the ambit of
notification and the judgments which have been relied by
the counsel for the petitioner referred supra are aptly
applicable to the case on hand. Hence, orders suffer from
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8913
AND 3 OTHERS
its legality and correctness and hence, this Court can
exercise the revisional jurisdiction. Hence, I answer the
above point as affirmative.
Point no.2
17. In view of discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The revision petitions are allowed. The impugned
orders passed by the Trial Court directing the DLSA to pay
the compensation in all the cases are hereby set aside.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
