Introduction

The victims of the crime are often the forgotten people in the system. The
entire focus of criminal justice system is on the criminal, either to punish
him or to reform him. Efforts are made to understand his personality and
the individual and social factors which might have contributed to his
criminal behavior. President Gerald R. Ford sent the following message to
the American congress in 1975:

“For too long, the law has centred its attention more on the rights of
criminal than on the victims of crime. It is high time we reversed this trend
and put the highest priority on the victims and potential victims.”

However, the sympathy for the victims, in the recent times, has
added new dimension to the concept of criminology. In fact, a separate
discipline ‘victimology’ has emerged.

The term victimology was coined in 1947 by Benjamin Mendelsohn.

It is the scientific study of victims of crime, a sub discipline of criminology.
It seeks to study the relationship between victim and offenders, the
persons especially vulnerable to crimes and the victims’ Placement in the
criminal justice system. Victimology is basically a study of crime from the
point of view of the victim, of the persons suffering from injury or
destruction by action of another person or a group of persons. (CJS). B.
Mendelsohn is credited with being the first study to the relationship
between victim and doer (offender) and taken together, he termed to else
penal couple. In his victimology he focused his attention on the possible
role of the victim on the circumstances surrendering him in the
commission of the crime. He identified four factors in the context of the
crime of rape and other offences against morality which could be
responsible for lessening of the resistance on the victims part:

1. The familial, authoritative or hierarchical relations existing between

the accused and the victim.

2. The temperament of the victim, which may obscure the reasoning

faculty.

3. The liberative social surroundings of the victim.

4. The superiority of the social milieu of the accused in relation to that

of the victim.

In a broader perspective Antilla (1975) defined victimology as under:

“Victimology studies by logical, Sociological, Psychological and

criminological aspects about the victims and brings into focus the
victim-offender relationship and the role played by the victim in
occurrence of the offence”.

The United Nations General Assembly in 1985 adopted a declaration

known as “Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of
Power”. The declaration treated as Magna Carta of rights of victims
globally. This declaration deals with certain important aspects of
problems of victims of crime including victims of Abuse of Power. Some
important suggestions discussed in the declaration are discussed as
under:

a) Victim should be treated with compensation and respect for their

dignity. They are entitled to access to the mechanisms of justice and
to promote redress, as provided for by National Legislation, for the
harm they have suffered.

b) Judicial and administrative mechanism should be established and

strengthened where necessary to enable victims to obtain redress
through formal and informal procedures that are expeditious, fair,
inexpensive and accessible. The victims should be informed about
their rights in seeking redress through such mechanisms.

c) Providing proper assistance to victims through the legal process.

d) Taking measures to minimize inconvenience to victims, protect their

privacy where necessary and ensure their safety as well as that of
their families and witnesses on their behalf, from intimidation and
retaliation.
Definition and types of Victims

United Nations General Assembly Declaration of Basic Principles of

Justice for Victim and Abuse of Power adopted in November 1985,
through Article 1&2 gives exhaustive definition of the term victim:

Article1. "Victims" means persons who, individually or collectively, have

suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering,
economic loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights,
through acts or omissions that are in violation of criminal laws operative
within Member States, including those laws proscribing criminal abuse of
power.

Article2. A person may be considered a victim, under this Declaration,

regardless of whether the perpetrator is identified, apprehended,
prosecuted or convicted and regardless of the familial relationship
between the perpetrator and the victim. The term "victim" also includes,
where appropriate, the immediate family or dependants of the direct victim
and persons who have suffered harm in intervening to assist victims in
distress or to prevent victimization.

The penal codes of the erstwhile USSR describe the victim as follows:
 1. Those who have as a direct result of a crime suffered moral physical
or material damage;

2. Those who have suffered physical, moral, or material damage throw

and attempted offence;

3. Those whose material damage caused by the crime was made good
after the crime, either by the criminal himself or with the help of
Militia or of an individual action;

4. Close relation of person who died as a result of a crime.

From the legal stand point, Faltah (1966) observed-

The Victim may be specific such as physical or moral person (Corporation,

State, and Association) or non specific-and an abstraction.

In wider perspective defined by Roy Lambron (1983-84)-

“a person who has suffered physical or mental injury or harm, mental loss
or damage or other social disadvantage as result of conduct.”

Abdul Faltah outlined the five major categories of victims:

non-participating, latent, provocative and defiant.

Von Hentig made the first ever study of the role of victim in crime
and found some general characteristics among them which may be
summarized as follows:

1. The poor and ignorant immigrants and those who are requisitive or
 greedy are the victims of offences involving frauds.

2. Quite often the victims of larcency (theft) are intoxicated or sleeping

persons.

3. The depressed or apathetic person is a victim because he is

“deprived of warning posts” and is indifferent harm or injury “in
prospect”.

4. Wanton or Sensual persons may become victims due to situations

precipitated by themselves.

5. A lonesome and heartbroken person may become especially

vulnerable because of the loss of critical faculties in him.

Among “general classes of victims”, Von Hentig includes the young,

females, the old, the mentally defective and deranged, the intoxicated
immigrants, members of minority groups and the “dull normal”. 

Mendelsohn studied victims on the basis of their contributions to crimes

and classified them into the following categories:

1. Completely innocent victims, e.g. Child, Persons in sleep

2. Victims with minor guilt and victims of ignorance such as pregnant

women who go to quacks for procuring abortions

3. Voluntary victims, such as the ones who commit suicide or are killed
by euthanasia.
 4. victims who are more guilty then offenders such as persons who
provoke others to commit crimes.

5. the criminal type of victims who commits offences against others

and get killed or hurt by others in self-defense.

Persons vulnerable to victimization

There are certain categories of vulnerable persons needing special

attention which are as follows:

Elderly Victims: Old persons who live alone often become the victims of
crime. Since they are weak and incapable of protecting themselves, they
are more prone to victimization. Recently, in Delhi many such persons
were killed by the thieves and robbers.

Child victims: the problem requires special attention regarding offences

involving violence in general and sexual abuse in particular. They need
special attention because inept handling by the law enforcement agencies
may prove to be even more damaging than the crime committed against
the child.

Rape victims: such victims deserve the maximum consideration in view of

the emotional, psychological and human problems involved. The stigma of
being a victim of rape and the harsh treatment given by the police and law
agencies makes her life miserable. The rules of criminal law and evidence
law are tilted against the victim. For instance, it is for the prosecution to
prove the lack of consent on the part of the victim; the credit of a rape
victim may be impeached by showing that she was of generally immoral
character.

Female victimization: throughout history and across cultures women have

been victims of various subtle and bizarre forms of discrimination, abuse
and exploitation all leading to their criminal victimization. Despite all
positive changes in their status, women are increasingly being subject to
greater violence and aggression, both physical and mental. Recently,
however, the gender related victimization of women has been recognized
as a serious social problem. But still the problem of rape, domestic
violence, dowry violence, etc. is not effectively resolved in the society.

Victims of abuse of power: such victims according to the U.N. declaration,

includes persons who have suffered harm through acts or omissions that
do not yet constitute violation of criminal laws but of internationally
recognized norms relating to human rights. That is why victims of abuse
of power come within definition of victims of crime. The public officials
often by their conduct make the people suffer. The weaker sections of the
society or the minority groups are often the victims of such abuse of
power.

VICTIM AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

One important and basic factor in the administration of criminal

justice is the victim’s decision as to whether he should invoke the judicial
process. There are a number of motives and factors responsible for the
wide gap between the actual volume of the crime and the reports made to
the police about it.

Only in the 1940’s did scholarly interest in the criminal-victim

relationship develop, although the founders of criminology had been
aware of how crucial it was. Hans Von Hentig, Benjamin Mendelsohn, and
Henry Ellenberger, the last in his study of the psychological relationship
between the criminal and his victims.

A movement for the recognition of the modern victim of crime as

deserving more effective remedy than the traditional practice of bringing
civil suits was begun by the English penal reformer Margery Fry in 1955.
Her call for reform was heeded in New Zealand in 1963, when that
country’s parliament established the first crime compensation tribunal.
This board has discretionary power to award public compensation to the
victim or his dependants in the case of certain specified offences. The
next year, Great Britain’s Tory government announced a similar but non
statuary program. In the United States the first jurisdiction to adopt the
compensation principle was California; which enacted its programs in
1965 and put it into operation two years later. Since that time, similar or
related programs have been established in some thirty states in the United
States and in all the Canadian, provinces. Financial restitution by the
offender to the victim represents another development in the legal
handling of the victim, in the United States, at least forty normal restitution
programs are in operation.

THE VICTIM AS VICTIM OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Students and professionals in the criminal justice system have

become increasingly aware that the victim of a criminal often becomes the
victim of criminal justice system as well as once the victim reports his
victimization to the police-the gateway to the criminal justice system-he
routinely faces postponements, delays, rescheduling, and other
frustrations. All their means loss of earnings, waste of time, payment of
transportation and other expenses, discouragement, and the painful
realization that the system does not live up to its ideals and does not serve
its constituency, but instead serves only itself. Many believe that the
victim is the most disregarded participant in criminal justice proceedings.
In practice, after the victim has reported his victimization and provided
information to the police, he may not hear from the police or the
prosecutor for a long time, if ever, cases are disposed of without any
consultation with the victim if and when the victim is called for the trial, he
is treated simply as the witness for the state and is subject to long delays,
postponements, and other frustrating experiences.

Newly focused attention has brought professional recognition to the

victim’s plight at the hands of the criminal justice system: As a result,
innovative proposals have been implemented to create victim assistance
programmes, to provide the victim with legal and social referral services,
to honor his right to be consulted and to offer his opinions when the
prosecutor plea bargains with the accused, and to totally revamp the
compensation-restitution idea. Some police departments report to victims
the progress being made in investigating and solving their cases, and
communities may provide such services as rape crisis centers and spouse
abuse shelters to assist crime victims by intervening in the crisis and
referring the victims to community and others resources in the case of
rape, the women’s movement has spurred victimologists-mostly males-to
give more equitable and balanced attention to the issues surrounding
what some have called “the most despicable but least punished crime.” 

Attention to the victim calls for an examination of the appropriate

remedies for victimization. Too often the remedies offered to poor victims
reflect middle-class values. The victim’s point of view should be sought
when systems are developed for compensating crime victims, and the
concept of relative loss should be introduced in debate and deliberations
for compensation.

GRIEVANCES AND PROBLEMS OF VICTIMS

The grievances of the victims can be summarized as follows-

1. Inadequacy of the law in allowing the victim to participate in the

prosecution in a criminal case instituted on a police report
 2. Failure on the part of the police and prosecution to keep the victims
informed about progress of the case

3. Inconvenience during interrogation by the police and lengthy court

proceeding.

4. Lack of prompt medical assistance to the victims of body offences

and victims of accident.

5. Lack of legal assistance to the victim.

6. Lack of protection when the victims are threatened by the offender.

7. Failure in restitution of victim.

Along with these grievances, the victims of crimes faced multifarious

problems: 

I Economic strain of the family

II Change in Social role of dependents.

III Frustration and helplessness leading to suicide.

IV Social stigma.

V Emergence of criminal behaviour.

Compensation to the victims of crime

 Victimology is not confined now in studying the penal couple
relation only. The compensation to victim is also gaining importance. A
person sustaining injuries or his dependants in case of his death may be
provided compensation. In certain primitive societies and in medieval
period the compensation was given to the victim or his family by the
offender or the clan to which he belonged. The wrong doer may not be
competent enough to provide the compensation and so the need arises of
the state responsibility to pay compensation.

Indian position

The Indian position regarding compensation to victim of crime can

be studied under two heads or rather must be studied under two head in
order to get complete picture.

(i)Legislative framework:

The legislative framework in Indian regarding compensation to victim of

crime can be trace through two major legislations i.e. Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 and Probations of Offenders Act and Constitution of
India. Under the provisions of code of criminal Procedure the power to
award compensation is vested under section 357 . The plain reading of the
section shows that sub-section (1) and (3) vests power on the trail court to
award compensation and sub-section (4) gives power even to appellant or
revision court to order for compensation. Sub section (1) empowers the
courts to appropriate the whole or any portion of fine recovered for the
purpose mentioned in the clauses to the sub section, under which Clause
(b) is most important and of our use . It demands that claim of
compensation must be accompanied by following conditions :

1. Loss or injury suffered

2. Loss or injury must be caused by the offence

3. Such person can recover the compensation in a civil court

Sub section (3) empowers the court, in its discretion, to order the accused
to pay compensation even though fine does not form part of
compensation and hence although inserted in 1973 added new positive
dimension to Indian philosophy of compensation.

Probation of Offenders Act vide its section 5 empowers the trail court to
order for compensation. The plain reading of this section clearly shows
that the power in case of this Act vests only with the trial court and
nothing else. The whole discussion about legislative framework is
incomplete until Section 431 and 421 of Cr.P.C. is read with above two
substantive sections. Section 421 provides for means to recover the fine
by attachment and sale of movable property of the offender and also from
both movable and immovable as arrears of land revenue . Section 431
empowers the courts to recover any money (other than fine) payable by
virtue of any order made under as if it were fine if method for its recovery
is not expressly provided . As far as the Constitutional scheme is concern
it is to be noted that it is out come of various decision of Supreme Court of
India either by reading Part third rights (in some cases part four as well)
with Art. 32, 136 and 142 of Constitution of India , which is to be given
either by the state or accuse.

Hence the whole gamete of legislative framework about compensation

can be Hence the whole gamete of legislative framework about
compensation can be summarized in following way:

i. Compensation from State, which is out come of Judicial Imposition

or some times, even ex-gratia under Constitution of India.

ii. Compensation from an offender which is out come either as a part

of fine or allocation of specific sum to victim either under Cr.P.C. or
Constitution of India.

(ii) Judicial response:

Their exist plethora of cases where the compensation has been awarded
by the Supreme Court to the victims of the crime which not only present
the heart full moments but also exposed the sorry state of affairs that has
been prevalent in the lower courts even some times High Courts.

It is better to examine cases under two heads i.e. (i) under Cr.P.C. and
P.O.A. and (ii) under Indian Constitution in order to appreciate the judicial
standpoint on this issue. 

(a)Under Cr.P.C. and P.O.A.

The first case in the line, which attracted the mind of the court came way
back in 1952 where the Hon'ble connected general principle of sentencing
i.e. while passing a sentence the court must bear in mind the proposnality
between offence and penalty with granting of compensation and observed
that while imposing the fine court must consider gravity of offence and the
pecuniary condition of the offender. Then came the case of Prabhu Prasad
Sha v State of Bihar where the Hon'ble not only uphold the conviction of 15
years old boy (actually at the time of commission of crime the accuse was
of 15 Yrs) but also observed that although requirements of social justice
demands the imposition of heavy fine but taking in to consideration the
condition of the accuse awarded fine of Rs 3000 to be paid by him to the
children of the deceased. In another case of Palaniappa Gounder v Sate of
Tamil Nadu Supreme Court following the same view as of earlier not only
reduced the amount of fine imposed by the High Court from Rs 20,000 to
Rs 3,000 but also observed that :

It appears to us that the High Court first considered what compensation

ought to be awarded to the heirs of the deceased and then imposed by
way of fine an amount which was higher than the compensation because
the compensation has to come out of the amount of fine. Apart from the
fact that even the compensation was not fixed on any reliable data, the
High Court, with respect, put the cart before the horse in leaving the
propriety of fine to depend upon the amount of compensation. The first
concern of the Court, after recording an order of conviction, ought to be a
determine the proper sentence to pass. The sentence must be
proportionate to the nature of the offence and the sentence, including the
sentence of fine, must be unduly excessive.

Next in the is land mark case of Sarwan Sing v State of Punjab where

supreme court not only retreated it's previous stand point but also laid
down, in exhaustive manner, that what all should be taken in to account
while imposing fine or compensation. The Hon'ble Court Observed that :

The object of the section therefore, is to provide compensation payable to

the persons who are entitled to recover damage from the person
sentenced even though fine does not form part of the sentence. Though
Section 545 enabled the court only to pay compensation out of the fine
that would be imposed under the law, by Section 357(3) when a Court
imposes a sentence, of which find does not form a part, the Court may
direct the accused to pay compensation. In awarding compensation it is
necessary for the court to decide whether the case is a fit one in which
compensation has to be awarded. If it is found that compensation should
be paid, then the capacity of the accused to pay compensation has to be
determined. In directing compensation, the object is to collect the fine and
pay it to the person who has suffered the loss. The purpose will not be
served if the accused is not able to pay the fine or compensation for,
imposing a default sentence for non-payment of fine would not achieve
the object. If the accused is in position to pay the compensation to the
injured or his dependents to which they are entitled to, there could be no
reason for the court not directing such compensation. When a person,
who caused injury due to negligence or is made vicariously liable is bound
to pay compensation it is only appropriate to direct payment by the
accused who is guilty of causing an injury with the necessary mens rea to
pay compensation for the person who has suffered injury.  And also :
It is the duty of the court to take into account the nature of the crime, the
injury suffered, the justness of the claim for compensation, the capacity of
the accused to pay and other relevant circumstances in fixing the amount
of fine or compensation. After consideration of all the facts of the case, we
feel that in addition to the sentence of 5 years' rigorous imprisonment, a
fine of Rs. 3500 on each of the accused under Section 304(1), I.P.C.
should be imposed.

The next important case is of Bhupendar Singh v State of M.P. which was
out come of quarrel between college students where the Hon'ble Court
although allowed the compounding of offence but did not forget the cause
of victim and granted the compensation of Rs 3000.
The Case of Harikishan and State of Haryana v Sukhbir Singh and others
is the second most important case after Sarwan Singh where court
repeated its firm understanding once again in following words :

The payment by way of compensation must, however, be reasonable.

What is reasonable, may depend upon the facts and circumstances of
each case. The quantum of compensation may be determined by taking
into account the nature of crime, the justness of claim by the victim and
the ability of accused to pay. If there are more than one accused they may
be asked to pay in equal terms unless their capacity to pay varies
considerably. The payment may also vary depending upon the acts of
each accused. Reasonable period for payment of compensation, if
necessary by installments, may also be given. The court may enforce the
order by imposing sentence in default.

In the case of Balraj Singh v State of U.P. stated the same point as

discussed above but in most appropriate word by saying that the power to
a award compensation is not ancillary to the other sentence but in
addition thereto.

(b) Under Indian Constitution

The principle of payment of compensation to the victim of crime was
evolved by Hon'ble S.C. on the ground that it is duty of the welfare state to
protect the fundamental rights of the citizens not only against the actions
of its agencies but is also responsible for hardships on the victims on the
grounds of humanitarianism and obligation of social welfare, duty to
protect it's subject, equitable Justice etc . It is to be noted that
compensation by the State for the action of it's official was evolved by the
Hon'ble Court against the doctrine of English law: "King can do no Wrong"
and clearly sated in the case of Nilabati Behra v State of Orissa that
doctrine of sovereign immunity is only applicable in the case of tortuous
act of government servant and not where there is violation of fundamental
rights and hence in a way stated that in criminal matters (of course if there
is violation of fundamental rights) this doctrine is not applicable.

Rudal Sah v State of Bihar is the most celebrated case where the Hon'ble
S.C. directed the state to pay compensation of Rs 35,000 to Rudal Sah
who was kept in jail for 14 years even after his acquittal on the ground of
insanity and held that it is violation of Article 21 done by the State of Bihar.
The case of Bhim Singh v State of J&K is another important case where
Bhim Singh an MLA was arrested by the police only to prevent him to
attended the Legislative Assembly, the Hon'ble Court not only entertained
the writ petition of his wife but also awarded the compensation of Rs
50,000 to be paid by the state. The case of Meja Singh v SHO Police
Station Zira is another unfortunate case where this time High Court of P&H
took the cause of victim and awarded the compensation of Rs 25,000 for
illegal detention of son of the petitioner. This time it was High Court
Bombay, which took the cause of the victim in the case of Ravikant Patil v
DG Police, State of Maharastra where the petitioner was taken handcuffed
to court in clear violation of Judgment of Hon'ble S.C., that is law, as
decided in the case of Prem Shanker Shukla v Delhi Administration .
Custodial Death is another burning issue where the courts have awarded
compensation to the victims of crime and the most important case under
this heading is of Mrs. Cardino v UOI where although the accuse was
arrested on the charge of misappropriation of some plastic ware and
hospital; utensils worth Rs1500 but tortured like hard core criminal and
hence he succumbed to the torture. Here when the matter was brought
before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay which gave the compensation of
Rs 2,00,000 to be paid by the state. In the case of Nilabati Behra v State of
Orissa where the son of petitioner was arrested by the police and next
morning his body was found laying down with several injuries on the
railway track, the Hon'ble S.C. awarded the compensation of Rs 1,50,000
that is to be paid by the State. On the issue of brutal use of force and
misuse of authority by the police out side the police station case ofSAHELI
v Commissioner of Police is land mark where the son of Kamlesh Kumari
died due to ill treatment by a S.I. of Delhi Police, the Hon'ble S.C. directed
the Delhi Adm. to pay the compensation of Rs 75,000. The next important
case is of Gudalure Cherian v UOI where Hon'ble S.C. following an
innovative approach first directed the whole matter to be investigated by
the CBI afresh and completion of investigation directed the Govt. of U.P. to
first suspend the police officials and medical officers who tried to save the
accuse but also directed the state to pay compensation of Rs 2,50,000 to
the victim of rape and Rs 1,00,000 to victim of other crime. The next in the
line is the case of Bodhi Satta Gautam v Subhra Chakraborty where the
Hon'ble S.C. invented the concept of interim compensation and enforced
the part third right against an individual by saying that:

This decision recognises the right of the victim for compensation by

providing that it shall be awarded by the Court on conviction of the
offender subject to the finalisation of Scheme by the Central Government.
If the Court trying an offence of rape has jurisdiction to award the
compensation at the final stage, there is no reason to deny to the Court the
right to award interim compensation, which should also be provided in the
Scheme. On the basis of principles set out in the aforesaid decision in
Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum, the jurisdiction to pay interim
compensation shall be treated to be part of the overall jurisdiction of the
Courts trying the offences of rape which, as pointed out above is an
offence against basic human rights as also the Fundamental Right of
Personal Liberty and Life.
The court also stated that :

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case in which
there is a serious allegation that Bodhisattwa Gautam had married Subhra
Chakraborty before the God he worshipped by putting Vermilion on her
forehead and accepting her as his wife and also having impregnated her
twice resulting in abortion on both the occasions, we, on being prima facie
satisfied, dispose of this matter by providing that Bodhisattwa Gautam
shall pay in Subhra Chakraborty a sum of Rs. 1,000/-every month as
interim compensation during the pendency of Criminal Case……… in the
Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Kohima, Nagaland. He shall also be
liable to pay arrears of compensation at the same rate from the date on
which the complaint was filed, till this date.

Therefore it can be observed that the Hon'ble Courts have taken little
softer view ( with regard to monetary aspect) when question of the award
of compensation come under Cr.P.C. as compare to when it come under
Constitution.

VII. Assessment of the Role of Legislative Frame work and Indian Courts:
The exit no doubt that Code of Criminal Procedure provided for the
compensation to victim in the year 1898, when even the concept has not
developed properly but now it submitted that the whole scheme under
Cr.P.C. or P.O.A. needs renovation. The most important attack on the
present legislative frame work lies on the desertion given to the courts i.e.
it depends upon them to grant compensation and absence of recording
any reason when they abstain them self from grating compensation.
Another criticism of the present legislative framework lies in the absence
of right of victim to claim compensation. Critics also argue for the
absence of any institutional scheme under the present legislative
framework that has now become the important part of victim- Crime
relationalship in countries of southern hemisphere such as USA, UK, New
Zealand, France etc . The laxity on the part of Indian legislature is so much
so that India has not made any legislation to give compensation to victim
of crime when accused is acquitted despite of its obligation under various
International Covenants . In this regard even Hon'ble S.C. in the case
of Delhi Domestic Working Forum v UOI has shown its concern in flowing
words:

It is necessary, having regard to the Directive Principles contained under

Article 38(1) of the Constitution of India to set up Criminal Injuries
Compensation Board........Compensation for victims shall be awarded by
the court on conviction of the offender and by the Criminal Injuries
Compensation Board whether or not a conviction has taken place. The
Board will take into account pain, suffering and shock as well as loss of
earnings due to pregnancy and the expenses of child birth if this occurred
as a result .......

So this in brief set out the major defaults in the present legislative
framework due to which the whole concept of compensation has become
akin to flop show in India. However it is to be noted that part of
responsibility of being the concept flop show lies on Indian judiciary as
well, especial the lower courts. In this regard the observation of Hon'ble
S.C. in the case of State of Gujarat v Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat is
relevant where following was stated:

Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 provides some reliefs to
the victims as the court is empowered to direct payment of compensation
to any person for any loss or injury caused by the offence. But in practice
the said provision has not proved to be of much effectiveness. Many
persons who are sentenced to long term imprisonment do not pay the
compensation and instead they choose to continue in jail in default
thereof. It is only when fine alone is the sentence that the convicts
invariably choose to remit the fine. But those are cases in which the harm
inflicted on the victims would have been far less serious. Thus the
restorative and reparative theories are not translated into real benefits to
the victims.

Case of Harikishan Singh is also of importance where the Hon'ble S.C.

observed that:
It is an important provision but courts a have seldom invoked it. Perhaps
due to ignorance of the object of it. It empowers the court to award
compensation to victims while passing judgment of conviction. In addition
to conviction, the court may order the accused to pay some amount by
way of compensation to victim who has suffered by the action of accused.
It may be noted that this power of courts to award compensation is not
ancillary to other sentences but it is in addition thereto. This power was
intended to do something to reassure the victim that he or she is not
forgotten in the criminal justice system. It is a measure of responding
appropriately to crime as well of reconciling the victim with the offender. It
is, to some extent, a constructive the victim crimes. It is indeed a step
forward in our criminal justice system. We, therefore, recommend to all
courts to exercise this power liberally so as to meet the ends of justice in a
better way.

Moreover the comment High Court in case of In Re Drug Inspector is very

important where it was stated that efficacy of a law and its social utility
depends largely on the manner4 and the extent of its application by the
courts . It was further stated that the good law badly administered may fail
its social purpose and if overlooked in practice fail in the purpose and
utility . The Law Commission of India in its 41st report clearly sated that
our courts are not liberal in utilizing these provisions and went to the
extent of saying that it is regrettable that our courts do not exercise their
statutory powers under this section as freely and liberally as they could
desire.

However in this regard it is to be noted that the attempt of Hon'ble S.C. and
some of the High Courts as discussed above clearly shows that they are
championing the cause of victim even in the given set up but still looking
to the problem as a whole, inherent weakness on the legislative framework
as well as laxity on the part of court has made the proper functioning of
whole concept a distant dream in strict sense.

Conclusion

The victim is essentially an inseparable part of crime. Therefore the

phenomenon of crime cannot be comprehensively explained without
incorporating the victim of a crime. Crime victim, despite being an integral
part of crime and a key actor in criminal justice system, remained a
forgotten entity as his status got reduced only to report crime and appear
in the court as witness and he routinely faces postponements, delays,
rescheduling, and other frustrations. All their means loss of earnings,
waste of time, payment of transportation and other expenses,
discouragement, and the painful realization that the system does not live
up to its ideals and does not serve its constituency, but instead serves
only itself. Many believe that the victim is the most disregarded participant
in criminal justice proceedings.

It is, therefore, the Indian Higher Courts have started to award the
compensation through their writ jurisdiction in appropriate cases.
 An Assignment of

Criminology

On the topic

Victimology

Submitted by

Ayush Jha

B.A.LL.B.(H.)

5th Semester

Roll No. 10

Subject teacher: D. K. Sarma

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I WOULD LIKE TO THANK MY CRIMNOLOGY TEACHER MR. D.K

SHARMA FOR HIS CONTINUING SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE.I
WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK MY FRIENDS AND PEERS FOR
SUPPORT AND ENCOURAGEMENT THROUGHOUT THE MAKING
OF THIS PROJECT.

THANKING YOU.
References:

∙ Criminology and Penology, Ahmad Siddique

∙ Criminology and Criminal Administration, Dr. S.S. Srivastava

∙ www.legalserviceindia.com