Karnataka High Court
Meenakshi W/O: Anil vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 7 March, 2023
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
WP No. 204139 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 204139 OF 2015 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHIVALEELA
W/O GURUNATH SWAMY,
AGED : 32 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND PRIVATE,
R/O: PRATAP NAGAR NOUBAD,
BIDAR - 585 402. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GANESH S. KALBURGI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
UNDER SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT (CRIMES),
BANGALORE- 560 001.
Digitally signed
by B NAGAVENI 2. KARNATAKA STATE LEGAL
Location: HIGH SERVICES AUTHORITY
COURT OF
KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS
MEMBER SECRETARY,
BANGALORE- 560 027.
3. DISTRICT LEGAL
SERVICES AUTHORITY,
BIDAR, REPRESENTED BY ITS
MEMBER SECRETARY,
BIDAR - 585 401. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI.SUDHEER KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
-2-
WP No. 204139 of 2015
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIFES.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIFES.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Compensation to victims of a crime is the keynote. Who might be a victim? A victim is a person who has suffered physical or emotional harm, property damage, or economic loss as a result of a crime.
Sri.Ganesh Kalburgi., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Veeranagouda Malipatil., learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and Sri.Sudheer Kulkarni., learned counsel for respondents 2 & 3 have appeared in person.
2. The brief facts of the case are stated as under:
It is the case of the petitioner that on the 30th day of December 2011, her husband was pulling a bucket of water from a well. Due to syncope, he fell into the well and died. The petitioner claiming herself to be the dependent, filed a D.L.S.A -3- WP No. 204139 of 2015 Claim Petition in No.22/2013 before the District Legal Services Authority, Bidar claiming compensation under Karnataka Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011.
The District Legal Services Authority vide order dated 19.09.2014 allowed the claim awarding compensation of an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only). The order of the District Legal Services Authority was sent immediately to Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for payment of compensation. The Karnataka State Legal Services Authority turned down the claim and rejected to release the amount of compensation citing that the case is not covered under Karnataka Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011, and informed the District Authority that it has sought clarification from the Government in this regard and to reconsider the matter and pass an order accordingly.
It is averred that the Government of Karnataka too opined the same as the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and said that the case is not covered under the Scheme. The KSLSA finally turned down the claim vide its letter dated 05.12.2014 to DLSA, Bidar.
-4-WP No. 204139 of 2015
Under this circumstance, the petitioner having left with no other efficacious and alternative remedy, has filed this Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents have urged several contentions.
4. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers and also the Annexures with utmost care.
5. The following points would arise for my consideration:
1) Whether the deceased and the petitioner could be termed as victims?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation under the Karnataka Victim Compensation Scheme 2011?
This is an interesting case to answer the query. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband was pulling a bucket of water from a well and due to syncope, he fell into the well and -5- WP No. 204139 of 2015 died. She contends that she is dependent and entitled to compensation under the scheme.
Before I answer the point, let us quickly glance through the objectives and aims of the scheme.
Victim compensation was a unique concept formulated by the Indian Judiciary in order to secure justice. One primary aspect to reassure and assist the victim would be compensating for the damage caused, this was considered an essential proponent of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Later, Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 made it mandatory for the State to provide compensation for the victims and their dependents who have been injured as a consequence of the damage caused as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation. Victim Compensation Schemes were formulated by almost all States of the Country, to provide for appropriate compensation.
Suffice it to note that the Government of Karnataka in the exercise of the powers conferred by Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) framed the Scheme for providing funds for compensation to the victims or -6- WP No. 204139 of 2015 their dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation. The scheme is called Karnataka Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011.
Under the scheme, Victim is defined as under:
"VICTIM" means a person whom himself has suffered loss or injury as a result of a crime and requires rehabilitation and includes his dependents who had suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation."
The scheme also sets out the eligibility criteria for a victim for the grant of compensation. It says that if the offender is not traced or identified, but the victim is identified, and where no trial takes place, the victim may also apply for a grant of compensation under sub-section (4) of Section 357A of the Code.
Reverting to the facts of the case, the petitioner contends that her husband was pulling a bucket of water from a well and due to syncope, he fell into the well and died. She claimed herself as a dependent and filed a petition for compensation under the scheme.
-7-WP No. 204139 of 2015
As is well known that only the victims of a crime are entitled to compensation. Suffice it to note that death is caused due to falling into the well. The incident is not a crime. Hence, neither the deceased nor the petitioner can be termed as victims. Hence, I have no hesitation in saying that the petitioner is not entitled to compensation under the scheme.
To conclude, I can say only this much the victims of a crime are alone entitled to compensation.
Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40