ORDER : COMPENSATION TO VICTIMS OF A CRIME IS THE KEYNOTE. EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF USING RESCUE EQUIPMENT, SUCH AS ROPES, INSTEAD OF GOING INTO THE WATER TO SAVE SOMEONE. DON’T TAKE THE RISK, LET SAFETY BE THE FRISK. IN WATER, NOTHING IS CERTAIN BUT SAFETY. Sri.Ganesh S.Kalburgi., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Veeranagouda Malipatil., learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and Sri.Sudheer Kulkarni., learned counsel for respondent No.2 have appeared in person. 2. The brief facts of the case are stated as under: It is stated that the petitioner’s husband died during rescuing a person who fell into a well. The petitioner filed a D.L.S.A Claim No.24/2013 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 the 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 under the Karnataka Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011. The Karnataka State Legal Services Authority turned down the claim and rejected to release the amount of compensation citing that the 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 said that the Government of Karnataka too opined the same as the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The KSLSA finally turned down the claim vide its letter dated 05.12.2014 to DLSA, Bidar. 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. 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 died trying to revive someone who drowned in a well and she is dependent and is entitled to compensation under the scheme. Before I answer the point, let us quickly glance through the personal safety and rescue measures. Every year, approximately four to five people lose their lives while attempting to rescue someone in trouble. While it may seem counterintuitive, personal safety should always be the number one priority in any rescue situation. Self- preservation is paramount. People who find themselves in a rescue situation should have the awareness to recognize an emergency and accept responsibility; an assessment to make an informed judgment; should develop a plan and affect the rescue and should give aid until medical help arrives. Suffice it to note that the rescuer needs to look at the environment and consider why the person is in trouble. Every rescue situation is unique but where possible, they should consider water depth, temperature, wind, visibility, time of day, and any other potential hazards in or under the water. They should also consider the degree of urgency required (conscious or unconscious person), the swimming ability of the drowning person, the distance to safety, and entry and landing places. Finally, but equally important, they need to consider their ability (knowledge, skills, fitness, judgment) about the above factors. When reflecting on their ability, they should also consider what other help may be available. Essentially, the rescuer needs to gather as much information as possible in an appropriate timeframe, and then ask themselves one fundamental question: Can I safely perform this rescue? If the answer is ‘yes’, then a plan of Action is required. How I wish the deceased posed a question to himself whether he can safely perform the rescue operation. With this background about the rescue measures, let us also quickly glance through the objectives and aims of the Scheme. Victim compensation was a unique concept formulated by the Indian Judiciary to secure justice. How I wish the deceased posed a question to himself whether he can safely perform the rescue operation. With this background about the rescue measures, let us also quickly glance through the objectives and aims of the Scheme. Victim compensation was a unique concept formulated by the Indian Judiciary 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 357-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) framed the Scheme for providing funds for compensation to the victims or 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 the 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 died trying to revive someone who drowned in a well and she is dependent and is entitled to compensation under the Scheme. 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 drowning in the well. The incident is not a crime. 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 drowning in 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.