Allowed¶8

The Member Secretary v. Minor Girl (Name Not Disclosed)

Karnataka HC30 Jun 2026CRL.RP/1673/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Victim compensation; Karnataka Victim Compensation Scheme; Clause 6(3) cooperation requirement; hostile witness; minor POCSO-era victim unnamed; DLSA; KSLSA Member Secretary; CRL.RP No. 1673 of 2025; S.397 r/w S.401 Cr.P.C.; S.438 r/w S.442 BNSS; Spl.CC.No.625/2019; Children's Court Bangalore; compensation Rs.6 lakhs set aside; Crl.RP.No.810/2022 and connected matters followed; Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. statements contradicted; H.P. Sandesh J.; condonation of delay I.A.No.2/2025.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Petition allowed; impugned order directing the DLSA to pay compensation of Rs.6 lakhs to the victim set aside; pending I.A.No.3/2025 disposed of; I.A.No.2/2025 (condonation of delay) allowed. ¶8

The Member Secretary Vs Minor Girl (Name Not Disclosed) — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the portion of the trial Court's order on sentence directing payment of Rs.6 lakh compensation to the minor victim under the Victim Compensation Scheme is sustainable. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

Since the minor victim and her mother, though examined, did not support the case of prosecution and completely turned hostile, the trial Court's order directing the DLSA to pay compensation of Rs.6 lakhs to the victim under the Victim Compensation Scheme cannot stand and is set aside, in view of this Court's judgment in Crl.RP.No.810/2022 and connected matters; the revision petition is accordingly allowed.

¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (under S.397 r/w S.401 Cr.P.C., corresponding to S.438 r/w S.442 BNSS) filed by the Member Secretary, Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, challenging the portion of the order on sentence dated 22.03.2022 (sentence dated 24.03.2022) in Spl.CC.No.625/2019 passed by the Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Children's Court, Bangalore, directing the DLSA to pay compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- to a minor victim under the Victim Compensation Scheme (Schedule to the Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, 2011 as amended in 2018). Held, allowing the revision and setting aside the compensation direction: the minor victim (PW.2) and her mother were examined at trial but did not support the prosecution and completely turned hostile; having regard to the eligibility condition in Clause 6(3) of the Scheme requiring cooperation with the police and prosecution, and following this Court's judgment in Crl.RP.No.810/2022 and connected matters, such a victim cannot avail the benefit of the Scheme. Respondent No.1/victim was served with notice through her mother but remained unrepresented. Pending I.A.No.3/2025 disposed of; I.A.No.2/2025 for condonation of delay allowed.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:32846 CRL.RP No. 1673 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1673 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE MEMBER SECRETARY KARNATAKA STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY NAVYA DEGULA 1ST FLOOR H SIDDAIAH ROAD BANGALORE 560 027.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. K N RANI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

MINOR GIRL (NAME NOT DISCLOSED) REP BY NATURAL GUARDIAN HER MOTHER, SMT. AARANA W/O AALIM KHAN, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, HOUSEKEEPER, NARAYANA SWAMY GARDEN, J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY S.J.PARK P.S., REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:32846 CRL.RP No. 1673 of 2025

¶18

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE PORTION OF THE ORDER ON SENTENCE i.e., CONSIDERING THE YOUNG AGE OF THE VICTIM, THE FINANCIAL, SOCIAL STATUS OF THE VICTIM AND THE MENTAL AND PHYSICAL TRAUMA SUFFERED BY THE VICTIM DUE OF THE INCIDENT, THE VICTIM IS AWARDED COMPENSATION OF 06 LAKHS PAYABLE UNDER VICTIM COMPENSATION SCHEME AS PER SCHEDULE TO COMPENSATION SCHEME FOR WOMEN VICTIMS/SURVIVORS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT/OTHER CRIMES2018, PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE L ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SITTING AT THE CHILDREN’S COURT, BANGALORE IN SPL.CC.NO.625/2019 DTD 22.03.2022 AND SENTENCE DATED 24.03.2022.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner

¶25

and the learned HCGP for respondent No.2/State.

¶26

This Court has issued notice against respondent

¶27

No.1/victim who represented by her mother. The said

¶28

notice was served and they remain unrepresented.

¶29

This revision petition is filed praying this Court

¶30

to set aside the order passed by the DLSA wherein the trial Court has directed DLSA to pay the compensation of

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:32846 CRL.RP No. 1673 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Rs.6 lakhs payable under the “Victim Compensation Scheme as per Schedule to Compensation Scheme for Women victims/survivors of sexual assault/other crimes2011 (as amended in 2018) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Victim Compensation Scheme’).

¶35

Learned counsel in support of her argument would contend that both victim as well as mother have not supported the case of prosecution and they turned completely hostile. Further, it is contended that the trial Court though acquitted the accused but ordered to pay compensation and the trial Court ought to have consider the spirit of the provision under Clause of the Karnataka Victim Compensation Scheme which enshrines the eligibility for compensation. Clause 6(3) specifies more particularly, the eligibility as under:

¶36

Clause 6(3) “The victim/claimant shall cooperate with the police and prosecution during investigation and trial of the case”.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:32846 CRL.RP No. 1673 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

The words ‘shall’ and ‘co-operation’ are to be construed as

¶41

mandatory phrases while reading this clause. The quintessential meaning of this clause is that the prosecution shall defend the case of the victim. With reference to this case, the co-operation must occur from the prosecutrix herself, which means that she must, by her own will, should stand by her case during the investigation and the trial.

¶42

It is further contended that in the instant case, the victim child and her mother, deposes that contrary to what was produced as Ex.P1,although P.W.2, the victim minor girl child, reproduced the content of complaint, she remarked that ‘somebody had done something wrong’ without stating the reason for obtaining her signature. The victim and the prosecution witnesses called upon to buttress the commission of the crime have to be diligent and loyal to case which is a primary aspect of effective criminal justice delivery. The crime committed against a victim is a crime against the society at large. The crime

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:32846 CRL.RP No. 1673 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

must be punished and the legal remedy provided must conforming with the behaviour of the victim before the Court and prosecution. Non-cooperation by the victim results in the grievous misuse of the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure and the purpose of this Scheme becomes abusive.

¶47

The counsel also vehemently contended that this Court also in similar set of factual aspect wherein the victims as well as their parents who are not supported the case of prosecution and turned hostile, i.e. in Crl.RP. No.810/2022 and Connected matters wherein it is held that:

¶48

“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, 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

¶49

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:32846 CRL.RP No. 1673 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

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 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

¶52

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:32846 CRL.RP No. 1673 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

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 its legality and correctness and hence, this Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction.”

¶55

By considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this

¶56

Court has to set aside the order of the DLSA.

¶57

Per contra, learned HCGP for respondent No.2/State also submits that the victim as well as the mother have not supported the case of prosecution before the Court but trial Court considered other material.

¶58

Further, the counsel appearing for revision petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court the trial Court had considered other evidence available before the Court and convicted the accused even though the mother and victim have not supported the case of prosecution and they cannot avail the benefit of the scheme. This Court has issued notice to the mother of the victim and inspite of service of notice, they never turned up. Having considered

¶59

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:32846 CRL.RP No. 1673 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

the material available on record and looking into the fact that the victim, mother have examined and they have not supported the case of prosecution and they completely turned hostile. In view of the judgment rendered by this Court in Crl.RP.No.810/2022 and Connected matters, the order passed the trial Court ordering to pay compensation of Rs.6 lakhs to the victim requires to be set aside and this Court also in the said judgment had taken note of material available on record and even discussed Clause 6 (3) and also the Notification issued by the State that the victim is entitled for compensation as envisaged under the aforesaid scheme even though she turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution and also not reiterated the averments of the complaint against the prosecution. Under the circumstances, the revision petition requires to be allowed.

¶62