THEORIES OF VICTIMOLOGY

Victim Precipitation theory: ‘Victim precipitation’ is a victimization where the victim causes,
in part or totally, their own victimization for example, two alcoholic friends, prostitute willing to
go with a stranger.

Victim precipitation is also sometimes referred to as victim blaming or victim facilitation and
refers to the idea of shared responsibility between the offender and the victim in a victimizing
event. Behaviors that can be interpreted as contributing to victim precipitation are those of the
victim that bring about, in whole or in part, his or her own victimization. Implicit in this
definition is the assumption that the victimization process is an interaction between two or more
people that results in victimization. The criminal event is therefore a social event, that influences
persons. The event is not a positive experience for victims and therefore is is a negative social
event. Key to victim precipitation is assigning the victim an active rather than a passive role as
opposed to assigning this role to offenders. Victim precipitation is evident in Wolfgang's study of
homicides. A good example of victim facilitation involves auto thefts. Imagine that college
freshman A is a late to class. She parks her car and left key door of the car in spot. It is chance to
steal his car from that place.

Deviant Theory of Victim: There is some overlap between the lifestyle theory and the deviant
place theory. The deviant place theory states that an individual is more likely to become the
victim of a crime when exposed to dangerous areas. In other words, a mugger is more likely to
target a person walking alone after dark in the bad neighbourhood . The more frequently a persn
ventures into bad neighbourhood where crime is common, the greater the risk of victimization.

There is also overlap between deviant and socioeconomic approach to victimization. Low
income household are more likely to be located in or near dangerous areas of town, and
individuals from these areas are poor and less capable to move away from these dangerous areas.
Routine Theory of Victimology:

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 factor 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.

The Supreme Court has forged new tools, devised new methods and adopted
new strategies for the purpose of making fundamental rights meaningful
even to the victims of crime of crime in AIR 1995 SC 14, the Supreme
Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to suspend and start disciplinary
action against two police officers and one medical officer for making
perfunctory investigation of rape case to pay the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as
compensation.

There is plethora of decisions, where Supreme Court awarded compensation

to the victims, whose plight was brought to the notice of the apex court
either by themselves or by way of public interest litigation. Millions of
victims of crime, who cannot approach the apex court out of ignorance of
lack of resources are still crying for justice with the aim of protecting the
human rights of victim in our criminal justice system and to fulfill the
constitutional obligation. The Supreme court should ask the Government to
confer jurisdiction on the criminal courts by making statutory provision for
the compensation of the victims of crime, irrespective of whether the accused
is convicted or not and to make statutory provision for participation of the
victim in prosecution, along with prosecuting agency in a criminal case
instituted on report of police.

Compensation & the need for sensitization of judiciary

Legislation conferred jurisdiction on the criminal courts under section 357(3)

of the code of criminal procedure for awarding unlimited amount of
compensation to the victims at the time of passing judgment of conviction.
This provision is not ancillary to other provisions of criminal procedure code,
but in addition thereto. By the landmark judgment in Hari Kisan’s case AIR
1988 SC 2127 Supreme Court not only awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- to
the victim, but also directed the subordinate criminal courts to exercise the
power of awarding compensation to the victims of offences in such a liberal
way that the victims may not have to rush to the civil courts for
compensation to the victims. Unfortunately, the subordinate judiciary is
rarely invoking this provision to award compensation to the victims, where
the accused persons are acquitted of the charge on benefit of doubt or on
any technicalities of laws.

The General Assembly of the United Nation’s has recommended payment of

compensation to the victims of crime by the State, when compensation is not
fully available from the offender or other sources. Unfortunately, the victims
of communal riots, dacoity, arson and rape are not getting compensation in
our present justice system. Since the State is under duty to protect the life,
liberty and security of its citizens, it is bound to pay compensation to the
victims of crime irrespective of whether the accused is convicted or acquitted
of the criminal charge. As the government is indifferent to the crying need of
the victims, the apex court directed the Government to set up a criminal
injuries compensation Board, under the supervision of criminal courts for
awarding compensation to victims of all crimes including rape or dacoity, in
addition to the directions given to National Commission for women to evolve
a proposal for rehabilitation and compensatory justice to rape victims.

Payment of compensation to the victims of crime for any injury caused to

him has not been institutionalized under the Indian Penal Laws. Nor any
legal right to be compensated has been created in favour of the victim. In
case of irreversible injury monetary compensation is the sole effective
remedy. In India there is neither a comprehensive legislation nor a statutory
scheme providing for compensation by State to offender to victims of crime.

The legislative vacuum of a legal right to monetary compensation for

violation of human rights has been supplemented by the higher judiciary by
developing a parallel constitutional remedy. In AIR 1983 SC 1086 the
Supreme Court for the first time in Rudal Sah Vs. State of Bihar made it
categorically clear that the higher judiciary has the power to award
compensation for violation of fundamental rights through the exercise of writ
jurisdiction and evolved the principle of compensatory justice in the annals
of human rights jurisprudence. In Oraon Vs. State of Bihar the Supreme
Court direct State of Bihar to pay the sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation
to Bhama Oraon who was illegally detained for 6 years and kept in mental
hospital when he was not in same. In Sebastain Vs. Union of India AIR
1984 SC 1826, on account of failure of Government to produce in habeas
corpus petition filed by wives, apex court awarded cost of Rs. 1 lac to

The magnifichlM MJHKJK JHJ fshjashk bfdks bh hdgaka jdhskjhkajsnakjb ndnhakd bjagskdnd