- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20431 CRL.RP No. 803 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 803 OF 2022 BETWEEN: KARNATAKA STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY MEMBER SECRETARY, KARNATAKA STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, IST FLOOR, NYAYA DEGULA BUILDING, H. SIDDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIGNESH A.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR, HULIYARU POLICE, TUMAKURU, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. GULZAR D/O SHEIK AMEER, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, HULIYARU CHIKNAYANAHALLI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, KARNATAKA. Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20431 CRL.RP No. 803 of 2022 3. SYED UMAR S/O SYED KHALEEL, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O SYED SABARA PALYA (KARADI SABARA PALYA) HANDANAKERE HOBLI, CHIKNAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, KARNATAKA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 02.09.2022, NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALTER THE ORDER DATED 05.03.2021 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1, TUMAKURU IN SPL.C.NO.170/2019 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 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. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20431 CRL.RP No. 803 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Sri.Vignesh A. S., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent for respondent No.1. 2. Notice issued to respondent No.2 repeatedly returned with an endorsement that respondent No.2 has vacated the house about five years earlier. 3. The order under challenge is the direction issued by the learned Trial Magistrate for payment of compensation to a victim of a sexual offence which was subject matter of Spl.C.No.170/2019. 4. Resorting to the powers vested in the learned Trial Magistrate and the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Tumkur, based on the recommendation made by the learned Trial Magistrate without adverting to the scope of the Victim - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20431 CRL.RP No. 803 of 2022 Compensation Scheme where under there is a specific mention that no compensation can be paid to the victim who has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution is challenged in this revision petition. 5. Learned Chairman, District Legal Services Authority was required to apply his mind before recommending the same to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority in this regard. When the matter was placed before the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority to release the amount pursuant to the recommendation made by the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Tumkur, decision is taken to challenge the said order on the judicial side inasmuch as victim in the case on hand having not supported the case of the prosecution would not be entitled for any compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme. 6. Pursuant to which the present petition has been filed. 7. Taking note of the fact that victim is not available in the address despite granting sufficient time to trace the new address, this Court decided to proceed with the case as it is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20431 CRL.RP No. 803 of 2022 purely a legal question and respondent No.2 need not be heard in the matter as admittedly victim has not supported the case of the prosecution. 8. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 9. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the victim failed to support the case of the prosecution and deposed in the cross-examination itself against the statement given by her before the Investigation Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. as well as statement given by her before the Jurisdictional Magistrate when she was examined under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. 10. With the permission of the Court, learned Special Public Prosecutor treated her as hostile witness and later on confronted the statement recorded by the Investigation Officer as well as the contents of mahazar which was marked at Ex.P.4 and questioned that she has been now won over by the accused; as such, she is deposing falsely is denied by her so also she denied having voluntarily stated before the jurisdictional Magistrate vide Ex.P.2. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20431 CRL.RP No. 803 of 2022 11. Taking note of the same, case also ended in acquittal. In a matter of this nature, where the victim has not supported the case of the prosecution, hardly there is any scope for the learned Trial Judge to recommend for grant of the victim compensation in utter disregard to the object of the victim compensation scheme. 12. Further, mechanically learned Principal and District and Sessions Judge, Tumkuru who is also Chairman of District Legal Services Authority has recommended the same to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority despite there were several circulars issued by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority that Chairman is not a post office and he is required to recommend the compensation payable to the victim after considering the relevant aspects of the matter. 13. Thus the decision taken by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority to challenge the order under judicial side is justified. 14. In view of the fact that victim has turned hostile to the case of prosecution, this Court is satisfied that this is a case - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20431 CRL.RP No. 803 of 2022 where the victim is not entitled for any compensation as per the scheme. 15. As such, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is allowed. ii. Consequently, the recommendation made by the District Legal Services Authority, Tumkuru for compensation payable to respondent No.2 – victim in Spl.C.No.170/2019 is hereby set aside. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3