JUDGMENT 1. This incident relates to aftermath of the communal riots in Gujarat, an incident known as `best bakery' case which took place in Vadodara where an unruly mob attacked the bakery shop and burnt it down, killing 14 people. For the occurrence 20 people were charge-sheetd. 2. By the order of the Supreme Court, the matter was transferred to the State of Maharashtra where the Trial court has convicted some of the accused and acquitted other accused. 3. By the impugned judgment, the High Court convicted four of them and acquitted five of the accused. 4. By the very same judgment, the High Court in exercise of its inherent power directed payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) to each of the victims which is challenged by the State on the limited ground of payment of compensation to the victims. 5. Ms. Jesal Wahi, learned counsel appearing for the State of Gujarat has submitted that so far as respondent nos. 1 to 6 are concerned, the State has already paid compensation to respondent nos. 1 to 6. Vide order dated 05.10.2015, the appeals were disposed of qua respondent nos. 1 to 6 are concerned. 6. In fitness of things, it would be appropriate to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) to injured victim respondent no. 12 - Nasibulla Habibulla also within a period of six weeks from today. 7. Respondent nos. 7 to 11 are the proforma respondents. 8. The only objection raised by the State is regarding the payment of compensation to respondent no. 13- Yasmin Nafitulla Habibullah Shaikh. 9. Ms Wahi, learned counsel appearing for the State of Gujarat has drawn our attention to the applications filed by respondent no. 13 - Yasmin Nafitulla Habibullah Shaikh viz. APPA Nos. 571/2011, 572/2011 and 573 of 2011. As per those applications respondent no. 13 sought permission of the High Court to resile from her earlier statement and the same came to be dismissed by the High Court. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the said application, respondent no. 13 resiled from her earlier statement and the High Court has found that her evidence was untrustworthy. Since respondent no. As per those applications respondent no. 13 sought permission of the High Court to resile from her earlier statement and the same came to be dismissed by the High Court. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the said application, respondent no. 13 resiled from her earlier statement and the High Court has found that her evidence was untrustworthy. Since respondent no. 13 - Yasmin Nafitulla Habibullah Shaikh has resiled from her earlier testimony and in the light of the observations made by the High Court regarding acceptability of her evidence and the fact that she is not an injured victim, direction to pay compensation to respondent no. 13 may not be justified. 10. The appeals are partly allowed and the direction of the High Court to pay compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) to respondent no. 13- Yasmin Nafitulla Habibullah Shaikh is set aside.