Victim role in administration of criminal justice :

In primitive societies and in the Anglo-Saxon period justice was privatised and redressal for wrongs
was totally in the hand of the victim. But with the growing complexities and increasing difficulties of
collection of evidence and bringing the wrongdoers to justice, the idea of private justice was
replaced by public justice in which the state functionaries took upon themselves the responsibility
of investigation and prosecution of crimes on behalf of the victim. This way victim's interest was
sub- summed in the state action.

But by the last quarter of the twentieth century, particularly after the UN Declaration of Basic
Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, 1985, victim perspective emerged in
a new and powerful way.

Victims of Crime and the Indian Criminal Justice System:

The development of victim oriented justice system in India is an outcome of proactive judiciary. The
decisions of Supreme Court, particularly in 70’s and 80’s, have contributed towards recognition of
the need and protection of victims of crime and abuse of power. The impact of UN Declaration of
Justice for Victims of Crime and pro-victim judicial pronouncements is visible in subsequent
legislative and executive initiatives.

Definition of victim:

It was the impact of UN Declaration of Justice for Victims of Crime and efforts of the Malimath
Committee that after so long in 2008 the Code has introduced the definition of ‘victim’. Section 2
(wa) of the CRPC defines ‘victim’ as a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason
of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression ‘victim’
includes his or her guardian or legal heir.

In UN Declaration the expression ‘victim’ means not only the person who has suffered the harm
(physical, mental, emotional suffering or economic loss) but also include those persons who have
suffered harm in intervening to assist victims in distress or to prevent victimization.

Locating Victim in the Criminal Justice Administration:

Role of victim in Pre Trial Process:

After being victimized the victim’s first encounter is with the police and his notion about entire
criminal justice system is dependent on the kind of treatment they get from the police. Clause 4 of
the UN Declaration also demands that victims should be treated with compassion and their dignity
to be respected.

Under the Code of Criminal Procedure victim/informant of a cognizable offence can give information
to a police officer about the same who is required to reduce it in writing as per section 154. The
victim/informant is required to sign it and get a copy of the FIR.

If the police officer refuses to record the information, the victim/informant is allowed to send it in
writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned.

Special reporting procedure for victims of sexual offences:

Where the information under section 154 of the Code is given by a woman against whom an offence
of acid attack or sexual harassment or rape is alleged to have been committed or attempted, then
such information shall be recorded by a woman police officer or any woman officer. The recording
of such information shall be videographed.

Victim’s role in investigation process:

The investigation process is exclusively a police function and it is not required on the part of the
investigating authorities to involve victims in the investigation process. Their participation in the
investigation process is dependent on the need of the investigating authorities. Victims do not have
right to seek information on progress of the investigation till the charge sheet is filed.

The Court has recognized right of the victim/informant to receive notice in cases where the police
has filed a closure report under section 169.

Victim’s right to participate in trial:

In our country, the right of legal representation is a fundamental right of every accused person but
In our country, the right of legal representation is a fundamental right of every accused person but
the victim is not even allowed to participate in the trial. Victims are merely seen as an informant who
set the wheels of criminal justice in motion. There role is limited to that of prosecution witness. The
prosecution is carried by state appointed prosecutor who is in-charge of the prosecution and victim
has no say in the conduct of prosecution.

Sections 24(8) proviso14, 301(2) and 302 of the Code which accord to the victim a vital right to
counsel, do not allow direct participation of victim in the trial and permits him to step in the trial
through his pleader.

Victim’s right to appeal:

Earlier the scheme of the Code only allowed the State and complainant to challenge the acquittal of
the accused in an appeal. But in 2008, by an amendment proviso to section 372 was added in the
Code which conferred right to appeal on a crime victim as well.
Under the said proviso, a crime victim may prefer an appeal in any of the following circumstances:

– against acquittal of the accused or

– conviction for a lesser offence or
– for inadequate compensation.

Supreme Court decision in Satya Pal Singh v. State of M.P. The Court has observed that the
proviso to section 372 must be read along with its main enactment i.e., section 372 itself and
together with sub-section (3) to section 378. Therefore, now victim can prefer an appeal in the High
Court only after obtaining the leave of the High Court.

Victim’s right to compensation:

Sections 357, 357A of the Code are repository of compensation to victims of crime.30 Section
357(1)(b) of the Code confers wide discretion on the sentencing court to divert whole or part of the
fine imposed on the accused as compensation towards victim of such crime for any loss or injury
caused by the offence. Similarly clause (3) of section 357 recognises payment of compensation
even in cases where fine does not form a part of the sentence. The court may order the accused
person to pay compensation to the victim who has suffered any loss or injury.

Section 357 has following limitations:

Section 357 has following limitations:

– compensation can be awarded only when the offender is convicted and sentenced.

– the payment remains suspended till the limitation period for the appeal expires.

Section 357-A was introduced by way of amendment to the Code in 2008 to remedy the
shortcomings of section 357 and for the first time the Code recognised payment of compensation
out of State fund even in cases where the accused is not traced or convicted.

Section 357-A (3) empowers the courts to recommend the award for compensation to the victims in
following cases:

– where compensation awarded under section 357 is inadequate or

– where the case ends in acquittal or discharge and the victim has to berehabilitated.

Even in cases where accused is not identified and no trial took place and the victim is identified, he
may request the State/District Legal Services Authority to award compensation as per section
357A(4).

Criteria for fixing quantum of compensation:

In awarding compensation courts should not first decide the quantum of compensation ought to be
awarded to the victim or his dependents and then impose a fine which is higher than the
compensation. In various cases the Supreme Court has mentioned following circumstances to be
considered by courts while fixing the amount of compensation:

– nature of the crime;

– injury suffered;
– justness of the claim for compensation;
– capacity of the accused to pay

Ensuring Restitution and Assistance to Victims of Crime:

Restitution means putting the victim in his/her original position. It is presumed that law will make fair
restitution to victims, their families or dependants which include the return of property or payment
for the harm or loss suffered, reimbursement of expenses incurred as a result of the victimization.

In this regard Section 357A (6) is a welcome step which requires the State/District Legal Services
Authority to provide to victims of crime immediate first-aid facility or medical benefits free of cost
on the certificate of the police officer not below the rank of the officer in charge of the police
station or a Magistrate of the area.

Section 357C of the Code extends the obligation for ‘treatment of victims’ on all hospitals, whether
public or private, to provide the first aid or medical treatment free of cost to the victims of any
offence covered under Sections 326A, 376, 376A, 376B, 376C, 376D or Section 376E of the Indian
Penal Code. Any failure to provide the first aid or medical treatment to the victims under section
357C will attract punishment under section 166B of the Indian Penal Code

Victims and Judicial Process:

In Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of victim
compensation and observed that:

“The provisions dealing with compensation to the victims of crime confer a power coupled with a
duty on the courts to apply its mind to the question of awarding compensation in every criminal
case. The Trial Judge must record his reasons for awarding/refusing compensation. The grant of
compensation to the victim of a crime is equally a part of just sentencing.

Victims of abuse of power:

Clause 18 of the UN Declaration of Justice for Victims of Crime defines ‘victims’ of abuse of power
in the following terms:

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 do not yet constitute violations of national criminal laws but of
internationally recognized norms relating to human rights.

In our country, we have yet to import clause 18 of the UN Declaration of Justice for Victims of Crime
and Abuse of Power. Even the Law Commission and Malimath Committee failed to recognize victims
of abuse of power as a distinct category of victims. But the Constitutional Courts have extended
their writ jurisdiction and awarded compensation to the victims of abuse of power as a public law
remedy.

In case of Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court recognised the need for compensation in
cases of abuse of power by the State machinery and directed the State Government to pay
compensation to the victim, Rudal Shah, for illegal incarceration for long years.