- 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 1ST FLOOR, NYAYA DEGUGA BUILDING H. SIDDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027 …PETITIONER (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. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 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 CRL.RP No. 810 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 802 of 2022 CRL.RP No. 804 of 2022 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 CRL.RP No. 810 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 802 of 2022 CRL.RP No. 804 of 2022 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 CRL.RP No. 810 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 802 of 2022 CRL.RP No. 804 of 2022 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 CRL.RP No. 810 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 802 of 2022 CRL.RP No. 804 of 2022 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 CRL.RP No. 810 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 802 of 2022 CRL.RP No. 804 of 2022 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 CRL.RP No. 810 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 802 of 2022 CRL.RP No. 804 of 2022 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 CRL.RP No. 810 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 802 of 2022 CRL.RP No. 804 of 2022 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 CRL.RP No. 810 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 802 of 2022 CRL.RP No. 804 of 2022 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 CRL.RP No. 810 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 802 of 2022 CRL.RP No. 804 of 2022 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 CRL.RP No. 810 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 802 of 2022 CRL.RP No. 804 of 2022 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 CRL.RP No. 810 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 802 of 2022 CRL.RP No. 804 of 2022 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 CRL.RP No. 810 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 802 of 2022 CRL.RP No. 804 of 2022 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 CRL.RP No. 810 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 802 of 2022 CRL.RP No. 804 of 2022 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 CRL.RP No. 810 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 802 of 2022 CRL.RP No. 804 of 2022 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 CRL.RP No. 810 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 802 of 2022 CRL.RP No. 804 of 2022 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 CRL.RP No. 810 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 802 of 2022 CRL.RP No. 804 of 2022 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 CRL.RP No. 810 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 802 of 2022 CRL.RP No. 804 of 2022 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 CRL.RP No. 810 of 2022 C/W CRL.RP No. 802 of 2022 CRL.RP No. 804 of 2022 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