Victims, Victimization and Victimology

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

1.1 HISTORY OF VICTIMOLOGY

1.2 THE CONCEPT
1.3 MEANING AND DEFINITION
1.4 SUBJECT MATTER
1.5 VICTIMOLOGY: APPROACHES
1.6 THEORIES IN VICTIMOLOGY
1.7 VICTIMOLOGY: THE NEED

While judiciary is generally concerned with protecting the interests of society, liberal criminologists till recently were concerned with protecting the
interests of criminal. Radical criminologists have now started talking of protecting the interests of the victims of crime. This has resulted in the growth of victimology as a
science. Therefore the study of victims is said to be a new field. Twenty years ago it would have been difficult to find any criminological agency (officials, professionals,
voluntary group etc) or research group working in the field of victims of crime or which considered crime victims as having any central relevance to the subject apart from
being a sad product of the activity under study of criminality. To officials the victim was merely a witness in the court case, to researchers either the victim was totally
ignored or was used as a source of information about crime and criminals. Until very recently there was a striking lack of information about victims and even now the
knowledge is still fairly sketchy, limited to certain crimes and often to certain types of victims. This ignorance is astonishing when one considers that the criminal justice
system would collapse if victims were to refuse to cooperate. Some victims have found that there treatments by the officials in the criminal justice system - the police,
lawyers, Court Officials, Judges and Compensations Boards- to be too stressful, demeaning, unfair, disregarding of their feelings, rights, needs and interests. Sometimes they
see the system as a second victimization, which can be more unpleasant than the original crime. In such cases they may become disenchanted with the system and choose
not to report or to cooperate in the future. Their experiences may also affect their friends and family, and even the general public, spreading a general reluctance to
cooperate. The syndrome is best known in rape cases where few women are willing to cooperate, but it also exists in other areas.

Various reasons might be suggested for this neglect of victim. Phipps (1986) pointed out to a number of these. In the earlier part of the century many
criminologist followed a positivist idea of crime, which involved the idea that an individual’s criminal behaviour was determined by a certain Social or biological factors
which they could neither control nor understand. In this model the criminal is seen largely as a victim. The notion of offender as victim implies his or her relative lack of
responsibility for their criminality and tends to focus attention on their need for help rather than on the need of the actual victim. Marxist or left wing criminology often sees
the criminal as the victim, but in these writings the victimization is through the use of power in labeling the offender, and in the bias of the way the Law operates. The effect
is again to make the literal victim invisible.

Marxist theories may also serve to distance the victim from study by arguing that crime is an expression of political opposition to capitalism. In all these
approaches the criminal and not the crime or its consequences is studied. The reason for this is that most of the funding for criminological research comes from central
Government, which was interested only in the problem of crime and not with the problems of vulnerability. In consequence, the attention of such research centered on the
criminals rather than the victims. It is thus not surprising that much of the early interest in victims came from non-Governmental funded research and often from victim
support schemes and from feminist writers on rape, sexual assaults and violence against women and children. Much current critical analysis still comes from these sources.
More recently, Central Government has become interested in Victims and more money has been made available. The police had also reacted positively, especially in areas
where they had obtained a reputation for insensitivity. For example, they now occasionally provide rape suites and arrange screening for witnesses in identification parades.
_______________________________________________________________________
1.1 HISTORY OF VICTIMOLOGY________________________________________

At first (going back to the origins of criminology in the 1880s), anything resembling victimology was simply the study of crime from the perspective of the
victim. With the exception of some psychological profilers who do this, nobody really advocates this approach to victimology anymore. The scientific study of victimology
can be traced back to the 1940s and 1950s. Two criminologists, Mendelsohn and Von Hentig, began to explore the field of victimology by creating "typologies". They are
considered the "fathers of the study of victimology."
 Von Hentig's work provided the foundation for analysis of victim-precipitation that is still somewhat evident in the literature today. Wolfgang's research
(1958) followed this lead and later theorized "many victim-precipitated homicides were, in fact, caused by the unconscious desire of the victims to commit suicide".
Schafer's theoretical work (1968) also represented how victimology invested a substantial amount of its energy to the study of how victims contribute - knowingly or
unknowingly -- to their own victimization, and potential ways they may share responsibility with offenders for specific crimes. In fact, Schafer's book, The Victim and His
Criminal, from this approach, is supposed to be a corrective to Von Hentig's book, The Criminal and His Victim. These new "victimologists" began to study the behaviors and
vulnerabilities of victims, such as the resistance of rape victims and characteristics of the types of people who were victims of crime, especially murder victims.

As Stated above the most notable early contributor to what he called ‘Victimology’ was D. Mandelson (1947). Although many criminologists, psychologists
and social thinkers before Mandelson were also concerned about the victim in crime. Amongst them the Pioneers were Von Hentig and H. Ellen Berger. Von Hentig in his
essay The criminal and his Victim and Henry Ellen Berger in his article Psychological relationship between the criminal and his Victim had made a good attempt to study
victims. Although Hentig and Berger considered the study of victim to be very important where as Mandelson in his essay the Origin of Victimology published in 1963
presented it as a full fledged branch in criminology and explained the structure and objective of this new science. Hence the credit for systematic and scientific explanation of
victim in crime goes to Mandelson. His work centered on the extent and way in which crime may be said to be precipitated by the behaviour or the life style of the victim.
This early work has had a partial revival in recent years when, in certain controversial cases, particularly rape cases it has been suggested that victimization is precipitated
or even caused by the victim.

Then after that at the beginning of the 1970’s there emerged in the US a number of groups interested in various areas of victimization or victims. These
groups were concerned with restitution or compensation for victims, the welfare of victims, groups of victims of particular crimes such as survivors of concentration camps,
prisoners of war (especially Vietnam), the relatives of the victims of drunk drivers, the often hidden victimization of women and children and the victimization of the mental
health practitioners. Although these groups were drawn from different background and have differing interests, they generally agreed on two issues that punishment should
be harsher and that criminals should be made to pay if the two could be merged through restitution, compensation or reparation, all the better. It was coincidental that these
groups were growing at time when the belief that a criminal could be rehabilitated within, or by, the criminal justice system was dying. Their stance was largely one of
revenge. But they also argued that victims had certain rights which they could expect to be met and needs, which should somehow be addressed. These have been taken up
internationally by the United Nations in its 1985 charter for victim’s rights entitled Declaration on the Basic Principle of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power. This
charter specifies
a. The ways in which victims should have access to judicial and administrative procedures, be treated fairly and have their views considered,
b. Encourages restitution (or compensation) by offender to victim,
c. Encourages Government funded compensation where the victim is poor and
d. Finally suggests ways in which victim may need assistance to recover from the ordeal.
The council of Europe has similarly addressed the problems of victims rights and has produced one convention, the European convention on the
compensation of victim of violent crime (1983) this entered into force in Britain on 1 June 1990.

Several empirical studies have been conducted on victims in India also, of which four are considered more significant. One is the study of 184 victims of
dacoit gangs conducted by D.P. Singh in 1978. Another is the study of victims of homicide conducted by Rajan and Krishna in Delhi and Banglore in 1981.This study aimed at
evaluating the socio-psychological background of the victims of homicide, ascertaining economic loss to the bereaved families and assessing compensation to the victims.
The third is the study of vehicle accidents in Delhi conducted by Khan and Krishna in 1981. It aimed at analyzing accidents as psycho-social events looking into the role of
victims in accidents and enquiring into the conditions of victims so as to assess their compensation needs. The fourth study was conducted by this author on the female
victims of crimes committed by males viz., dowry deaths, rapes, kidnapping, wife beating and murders. The Bureau of Police Research and Development, New Delhi, brought
out a compilation ‘compensation to victims of crime’ in 1979.This documents looks into the legal provisions relating to victims compensation in different counties. All this
shows how interest in victimology has grown in our country in the recent years.
_______________________________________________________________________
1.2 THE CONCEPT____________________________________________________

The term victimology is derived from the Latin word ‘ Victims’ and the Greek word Logos’ meaning ‘the study of victims’.

In a narrow sense, victimology is the empirical, factual study of victims of crime and as such is closely related to criminology and can be regarded as part of
the general problem of crime.
 In a broad sense, victimology is the entire body of knowledge regarding victims, victimization and the efforts of Society to preserve the rights of the victim.
Hence, it is concerned with knowledge about victims as a whole with an integrated and interdisciplinary approaches of psychology, psychiatry, social work, politics,
education and public administration.

Thus victimology is the science, which on one hand studies the degree and type of participation of the victim. Victimology is the study of victims as
criminology is the study of crime and criminals. The concept of victimology can be better understood if we
analyze the meaning, definition and Subject matter of Victimology.

________________________________________________________________________
1.3 MEANING AND DEFINITION ____________

Before we can understand victimology, we need to appreciate that it is a fairly new subfield or area of specialization within criminology. Criminology is a
rather broad field of study that encompasses the study of law making, law breaking, and societal reactions to law breaking. Victimology, much like criminal justice, falls into
the third of these areas. Victimology doesn't have any subfields within itself; in fact, there are few theories, and little or no schools of thought. Going back to criminology,
there are four subfields: penology (and the sociology of law); delinquency (sometimes referred to as psychological criminology); comparative (and historical) criminology;
and victimology.
Victimology is the scientific study of victims. It seeks to study the relationship between victims and offenders, the person especially vulnerable to crimes
and the victim’s placement in the criminal justice system. Some pioneering work in the area was done in the late thirties and forties. B. Mandelson is credited for being the
first to study the relationship between the victim and the Doer (offender) and taken togtheer he termed the two as the penal couple.

Victimology focuses on the victim’s condition and the victim’s relationship to the criminal. Hence, there can be two major sub areas of victimology.

a. The one relating to the scientific study of criminal behaviour and the nature of the relationship which may be found to exist between the
offender and the victim.

b. The other relating directly to the administration of justice and the role of system of compensation and restitution to the victim.

Thus victimology is the science, which on one hand, studies the degree and type of participation of the victim in the genesis or development of the offence,
and on the other hand, evaluates what is just and proper for the victim’s relief and benefit.

Schafer has described victimology as ‘the science, which studies criminal-victim relationship’.

Drapkin has defined it as ‘that branch of criminology which primarily studies the victims of crime and everything that is connected with such a victim.’

Some scholar have described victimology as branch of criminology but Mandelson views it as an independent science, as a ‘science parrell to it’ or better
‘the reverse of criminology’. He has also proposed new terms such as ‘victimal’ as opposed to ‘criminal’, ‘victimity’ as opposed to criminality’, victimal receptivity’ meaning
‘individual unconscious attituide for bring victimised’.

The definition of victimology varies from expert to expert. In it's most narrow sense, it is finding out as much as possible about the victim. In the Crime
Classification Manual, Dr. Ram Ahuja define victimology as follows:

A complete history of the victim, including life-style, personality traits, employment, and so on. This includes, but is not limited to the following:
a. Family Background
b. Reputation of victim
c. Likes and dislikes
d. Drug/Alcohol abuse
e. Financial troubles
f. The last known person(s) the victim spoke to and the circumstances.
 g. Any enemies or any reason known that someone may have wanted to kill the victim
h. Routines the victim had

Andrew Karmen, who wrote a text on victimology entitled Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology in 1990, broadly defined victimology as :

‘The scientific study of victimization, including the relationships between victims and offenders, the interactions between victims and the criminal justice
system -- that is, the police and courts, and corrections officials -- and the connections between victims and other societal groups and institutions, such as the media,
businesses, and social movements.’

From this definition, we can see that victimology encompasses the study of:
 Victimization

 Victim-offender relationships

 Victim-criminal justice system relationships

 Victims and the media

 Victims and the costs of crime

 Victims and social movements

Thus Victimology is the study of people who hurt others, and people who are hurt by others. Its subjects are bullies, rapists, molesters, batterers, gang
leaders, terrorists, hate crime perpetrators, armed robbers, and their victims.

______________________________________________________________________
1.4 SUBJECT MATTER_________________________________________________

The subject matter of victimology can be broadly classified into

a. Victim Typology
b. Victim Participation in Crime
c. Compensation to victims of Crime

a. Victim Typology
Victim typology attempts to classify the characterization of victim based on psychological, biological and sociological factors. It helps to understand the
crime problem and the offender –Victim relationship.

b. Victim Participation in crime

Victim Participation in crime focuses attention on the degree to which the victim could be considered responsible for his own victimization.

c. Compensation to Victim’s
Compensation to Victims is concerned with restitution or compensation to victims and their dependents for pecuniary loss, bodily injury or death resulting
from crime.

That is Victimology claims that the offender has the responsibility for the reparation of injury caused to the victim. It also emphasizes that if the offender is
not in a position to indemnity for his act than the State must come forward in making compensation to the victim.

Thus Victimology as a separate discipline deals with the study of the problems of victim of crimes and their rights to claim compensation, which includes
rehabilitation and restitution, from the offender or the authorities of the State.

________________________________________________________________________
1.5 VICTIMOLOGY : THE APPROACHES_________________________________
 Victimologists often use surveys of large numbers of people about the crimes that have been committed against them because official police statistics are
known to be incomplete. Data derived from victimization surveys are carried out each year by the Census Bureau on behalf of the Department of Justice (the NCVS - National
Crime Victimization Survey). Victimologists then estimate victimization rates and risks.

The victimological mtheod involves the following approaches:

a. Defining the problem - Finding the asymmetry, Analysing responsibility, Exploring the kinds of harm

b. Measuring true dimension of the problem - Analysing statistics, Observation of what kind of people are involved, accurately gauging extent
of harm.

c. Investigation of how Criminal Justice system handles the problem – Observing what Criminal Justice system is ignoring, Finding what
victim wants, analysing effects, chronicle emergence of victim's movement.

d. Examination of societal response to problem -Look at issues of constitutional rights, Analysing proposed legislation, Analysing media
reaction, Observing if anyone is cashing in on the problem

______________________________________________________________________
1.6_THEORIES IN VICTIMOLOGY______________________________________

Over the years, ideas about victim precipitation have come to be perceived as a negative thing; "victim blaming" it is called. Research into ways in which
victims "contribute" to their own victimization is considered by victims and victim advocates as both unacceptable and destructive. Yet a few enduring models and near-
theories exist. These are:
a. Luckenbill's Situated Transaction Model
b. Benjamin & Master's Threefold Model
c. Cohen & Felson's Routine Activities Theory

_____________________________________________________________
1.6.1_LUCKENBILL'S SITUATED TRANSACTION MODEL _______

Luckenbill's Situated Transaction Model was given in 1977.This one is commonly found in sociology of deviance textbooks. The idea is that at the
interpersonal level, crime and victimization is a contest of character. The stages are as follows:

a. Insult - "Your Mother";

b. Clarification - "What did said about my Mother";
c. Retaliation - "I said your Mother and you too";
d. Counter retaliation - "Well, you're worse than your Mother";
e. Presence of weapon - or search for a weapon or clenching of fists;
f. Onlookers - presence of audience helps escalate the situation.

___________________________________________________
1.6.2 BENJAMIN & MASTER'S THREEFOLD MODEL_

This one is found in a variety of criminological studies, from prison riots to strain theories. The idea is that conditions that support crime can be classified
into three general categories:

a. Precipitating factors - time, space, being in the wrong place at the wrong time;
b. Attracting factors - choices, options, lifestyles (the sociological expression "lifestyle" refers to daily routine activities as well as special events
one engages in on a predictable basis);
 c. Predisposing factors - all the socio-demographic characteristics of victims, being male, being young, being poor, being a minority, living in
squalor, being single, being unemployed.

______________________________________________________________
1.6.3_COHEN & FELSON'S ROUTINE ACTIVITIES THEORY______

Cohen & Felson's Routine Activities Theory was given in 1979. This one is quite popular among victimologists today who are anxious to test the theory.
Briefly, it says that crime occurs whenever three conditions come togtheer:

a. Suitable targets – Suitable targets are always there due to widespread poverty.
b. Motivated offenders – There are motivated offenders since victimology, unlike deterministic criminology, assumes anyone will try to get
away with somtheing if they can; and
c. Absence of guardians - The problem is that there's few defensible spaces (natural surveillance areas) and in the absence of private
security, the government can't do the job alone.

The phenomena that criminals and victims often have the same sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., are in relatively the same age group) is known as
the propinquity hypothesis; and that criminals and victims often live in physical proximity to one another is called the proximity hypothesis.

________________________________________________________________________
2.5._VICTIMOLOGY : THE NEED _____________________________

The need for scientific study of victims has been explained by Krishna and Singh on several bases:
a. The gravity of the offence can be better determined by ascertaining as to how the victim feels about it.
b. The cause of crime becomes more discernible by analyzing the victim’s background and the situation contributing to crime.
c. The analysis of offender –victim relationship enables us to identify individual or groups who are likely to be the targets of crime.
d. Victimological studies provide information about crime not reported to police help in developing scientific theories of crime. Such studies serve
heuristic, diagnostic and prognostic functions
e. Victimological studies facilitate the chalking out of a viable preventive policy.

The importance of victimlogy lies in the fact that it

a. Suggests pro-active techniques to bring the offender closer to apprehension
b. Advises law enforcement of interrogation techniques designed to get a particular offender to confess and
c. Helps find the common denominator(s) among the victims to one, narrow the offender-type possibilities and two, to enable law
enforcement to make the public aware of who is most likely to be in danger.

This shows that Victimology is the study of why certain people are victims of crime and how lifestyles affect the chances that a certain person will fall
victim to a crime. The field of victimology can cover a wide number of disciplines, including sociology, psychology, criminal justice, law and advocacy.

CHAPTER II
WHO IS THE VICTIM?

2.1 MEANING AND DEFINITION

2.2 CLASSIFICATION OF VICTIMS OF CRIME

The concept of victim dates back to ancient cultures and civilizations, such as the ancient Hebrews. Its original meaning was rooted in the idea of sacrifice
or scapegoat -- the execution or casting out of a person or animal to satisfy a deity or hierarchy. Over the centuries, the word victim came to have additional meanings.
During the founding of victimology in the 1940s, victimologists such as Mendelson, Von Hentig, and Wolfgang tended to use textbook or dictionary definitions of victims as
hapless dupes who instigated their own victimizations. This notion of "victim precipitation" was vigorously attacked by feminists in the 1980s, and was replaced by the
notion of victims as anyone caught up in an asymmetric relationship or situation. "Asymmetry" means anything unbalanced, exploitative, parasitical, oppressive,
destructive, alienating, or having inherent suffering. In this view, victimology is all about power differentials.

Today, the concept of victim includes any person who experiences injury, loss, or hardship due to any cause. Also today, the word victim is used rather
indiscriminately; e.g., cancer victims, holocaust victims, accident victims, victims of injustice, hurricane victims, crime victims, and others. The thing that all these usages
have in common is an image of someone who has suffered injury and harm by forces beyond his or her control.

There seems to be a commonsense or commonly accepted idea or conception of a victim. One is that a victim is vulnerable, so that the victim of a street
robbery (or mugging) is often thought of as being elderly, usually female A victim of rape is necessarily female (men cannot be legally raped), usually young, and must have
fought vigorously to defend herself. Her male attacker must be a stranger to her. She must also be respected otherwise she is deemed to have no honour to protest. A victim
is therefore seen as some one who has not contributed to the criminality in any way. They are helpless and wholly innocent.
_______________________________________________________________________
2.1 MEANING___________________________________________________________

Victim in crime has no separate entity. He is viewed in relationship to the offender who has harmed him. That is why, offender and victim have been
described by Mandelson as ‘penal Couple’. The victim is generally described as ‘a person who has sustained physical, material or moral damage owing to an unlawful act.’
The victim is not necessarily an individual. It may also be a collective entity like a family, a firm, a corporation, a group or even a whole nation.

According to Quinney,’ The Victim is a social construction in the subject-object relationship in a crime situation’.
Khan and Singh have defined a victim as ‘a social person who has sustained psychological, physical, material or social damage on account of being the object of depredation
(destruction).’

The term "crime victim" generally refers to any person, group, or entity who has suffered injury or loss due to illegal activity. The harm can be physical, psychological, or
economic.
The legal definition of "victim" typically includes the following:

A person who has suffered direct, or threatened, physical, emotional or pecuniary harm as a result of the commission of a crime; or in the case of a victim being an
institutional entity, any of the same harms by an individual or authorized representative of another entity.

Group harms are normally covered under civil and constitutional law, with "hate crime" being an emerging criminal law development, although criminal law tends to treat
all cases as individualized.

The United Nations General Assembly Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victim and Abuse of Power Adopted in November 1985, in its Article 1 and 2 gives
exhaustive definition of the Phrase, which is as follows:

Article 1. ‘Victims’ means persons who, individually or collectively, have suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional sufferings, economic loss or
substantial impairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omission that are in violation of criminal laws operative within member State, including those laws
proscribing criminal abuse of power.

Article 2. 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 dependents of the
direct Victim and persons who have suffered harm in intervening to assist victims in distress or to prevent victimization.

Article 3. The provision contained herein shall be applicable to all without distinction of any kind such as race, colour, sex, age, language, religion, nationality, political or
other opinion, cultural beliefs or practices, property, birth or family status, thenic or social origin and disability.

B. Victims of Power of Abuse

Article 18. ‘Victims’ means those who individually or collectively have suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional sufferings, economic loss or substantial
impairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omission that do not yet constitute violations of national criminal laws but of internationally recognized norms
relating to human rights.

Thus etymological meaning of the phrase ‘Victim of Crime’ is anyone suffering physical, emotional or financial harm as a direct result of crime. The Victim of crime can also
be the Spouse and Children of the Person who has suffered, Parents, guardians or other custodians of minor victims, mentally or physically incapacitated victims or victims
of homicide.

Many victims feel that defining themselves as a "victim" has negative connotations, and choose instead to define themselves as a "survivor." This is a very personal choice
that can only be made by the person victimized. The term "survivor" has multiple meanings; e.g. survivor of a crime, "survivor benefits." It remains to be seen whether this
terminology for victims of crime will endure.

"Victim defenses" have recently emerged in cases of parricide (killing one's parents) and homicide of batterers by abused spouses. Advocates for battered women were
among the first to recognize the issue, and promote the "battered woman syndrome" to defend women who killed or seriously injured a spouse or partner after enduring
years of physical, emotional and/or sexual abuse. Attorneys have also drawn upon theories of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder to defend their client's behavior. From time to
time, media attention to these defenses becomes intense, and certain "high profile" cases tend to influence public opinion and spread confusion over who is the "victim" and
who is the "victimizer." One of the goals of victimology as a science is to help end this State of societal confusion

______________________________________________________________________
2.2 CLASSIFICATION OF THE VICTIMS OF CRIME _______________________

While crime victim-related research of 40 and 50 years ago examined the characteristics of victims, much of it approached the issue from the perspective of "shared
responsibility," that is how crime victims were, in part, "responsible" for their victimization. In recent decades, the paradigm has shifted. The contemporary study of the
characteristics of crime victims has tended to focus on identifying risk factors in order to better understand the phenomena, without attributing blame to the victims.
Information about the risk for victimization has been used to develop crime prevention and enforcement strategies.

Researches indicate that there is a host of individual, situational, and community-level factors that increase risk of criminal victimization. Let's look at the individual factors.
Individuals can be described in terms of their sociodemographic characteristics.
__________________________________________________
2.2.1 SOCIO - DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS__

The risk of becoming a crime victim varies as a function of S.A.U.C.E.R:

a Sex - Male or female
b Age - Young, middle aged, or elderly
c Urban - Urban or rural
d Class - Socioeconomic class
e Thenicity - Racial characteristics
f Religion - Religious preference

a. Sex - With the exception of sexual assault and domestic violence, men have higher risk of assault than women. Lifetime risk of homicide is three to four
times higher for men than women.

b. Age - Adolescents have substantially higher rates of assault than young adults or older people. Findings of the National Crime Victimization Survey
indicate that 12-to-19 year olds are two to three times as likely as those over 20 to become victims of personal crime each year. Findings also indicate that 62% of all forcible
rape cases occurred when the victim was under 18 years of age.

c. Urban - Crime and victimization is mostly an urban problem. Urban areas have a dangerous amount of transience (strangers moving in and out of town),
heterogeneity (mix of different people and places), and disorganization (dilapidation of housing and buildings).
d. Class - Violence disproportionately affects those from lower socioeconomic classes. Family income is related to rates of violence and victimization, with lower income
families at a higher risk than those from higher income brackets.

Poverty increases the risk of assault even after controlling for the effects of prior victimization and sensation seeking.

e. Ethnicity - Racial, ethnic and caste minorities have higher rates of assault than other Americans.
f. Religion - Certain religious groups tend to be regularly persecuted, and over represented in hate crime statistics.

Demographic variables of age, gender, and racial status all tend to be confounded with income: young people tend to be poorer than older people; women tend to have less
income than men. Lifestyles and routine activities are generally related to demographic characteristics (e.g., age and marital status) and other personal characteristics. If a
person's lifestyle or routine activities places him or her in frequent contact with potential assailants, then they are more likely to be assaulted than if their routine activities
and lifestyle do not bring them into as frequent contact with predatory individuals.

Thus, those whose routine activities or lifestyles involve considerable contact with young men should have higher rates of victimization. Likewise, people who are married,
who never leave their houses after dark, and who never take public transportation should have limited contact with young men, and therefore have reduced risk of assault.

Different criminologist has given different types of victims on the basis of different criteria. Mendelson (1937) interviewed victims to obtain information, and his analysis led
him to believe that most victims had an "unconscious aptitude for being victimized." He created a typology of six (6) types of victims, with only the first type, the innocent,
portrayed as just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The other five types all contributed somehow to their own injury, and represented victim precipitation.

These six categories of victim as given by Mandelson is based on the degree of their contribution guilt in crime. These are
a. Completely innocent Victims (e.g. small infants/ children who are raped or murdered or kidnapped without their realizing what is being done
to them)
b. Victims with minor guilt (such as pregnant woman who go to quacks for abortion and pay for it with he lives)
c. Victims as guilty as offenders
d. Victims more guilty than the offenders (such as those who provoke others to commit crime)
e. The most guilty types of Offenders who commits offences against others and get harmed or kills themselves (e.g. a rapist who gets killed by his
victim who acts in self defence).
f. Simulating (or pretending) victims (such as paranoids, hysterical and senile persons) who give evidence in the courts in order to obtain
sentence an accused person.

Von Hentig (1948) studied victims of homicide, and said that the most likely type of victim is the "depressive type" who is an easy target, careless and unsuspecting. The
"greedy type" is easily duped because his or her motivation for easy gain lowers his or her natural tendency to be suspicious. The "wanton type" is particularly vulnerable to
stresses that occur at a given period of time in the life cycle, such as juvenile victims. The "tormentor," is the victim of attack from the target of his or her abuse, such as with
battered women.
Thus in simple terms Von Hentig has given following four types of Victims
a. Victims whose injury may be the price of a greater pain e.g. in abortion
b. Victims who bring about the detrimental result partly by their own concurrent effort e.g. prostitutes
c. Victims who provoke or instigate the offences e.g. by challenging the opponents to kill him if he can and in an emotional State of mind, the
opponent accepts the challenge and attacks
d. Victims who desire the injury

Walter Reckless has talked of two types of victims a. Reporting and b. Non reporting. The latter is one who is unwilling to report because he/she fears reprisals or social
consequences of doing so, the former is one who does not bother for the consequences of reporting his victimization but is rather interested in getting the offender punished
or getting some relief for his suffering.

Fattah has described five types of Victims: Non-participating, latent, provocative, participating and false victims.
Hentig has further classified the attitude of victim as (a) Lethargic Attitude (b) Submissive or conning attitude (c) Cooperative or contributory attitude and (d) provocative
or investigative attitude.
Bender and Blau in their study of victims of sex offences in 1965 noted the following personality traits of victims of sex-offences
a. They are attractive, charming and seductive
b. They are promiscuous
c. They are impulsive and given to fluctuating moods
d. They make adult contacts easily
e. They want pity and demand proof of affection.
f. They have parents who encourage them to be sexy
g. They defy their parents.

Schultz talking of the victims of sex offences has said ‘The victim is usually emotionally involved with the offender-spouse, parents, or lover. In many cases, when killers are
submissive and passive, victims are domineering and active. The victim therefore exploits this trait of submissiveness of the offender, becomes critical, demanding and
unmerciful or threatens to withhold love and affection. She thus instigates offenders overcontrolled hostility’.

Mandelson analyzing the personality traits of victims in murder has said ‘The victim of many assaults and homicide have what may be called an aggressive
tyrannical personality and engage in acts with the offender which invite or excite assaultive response.

Wolfgang analysed the previous arrest record of the victims and found that ‘In victim –precipitated cases, a high proportion of victims have previous
arrests records than the offenders. Against 62% victims having previous arrest records. All these studies, thus clearly point out the role of victim in crime.
The Victims in general may be broadly classified into twelve categories. They are:
1. Victims of war
2. Victims of Accidents that occur:
a. On road
b. On Railways
c. On the Aircraft
d. On Sea and
e. In the workplace
3. Victims of Abuse of Power by Lawful Authority:
a. Custodial death
b. Death due to firing
c. Groundless Arrest and detention and
d. Unnecessary Harassment
4. Victims of Rape
5. Victims of Criminal Conspiracy, offences of giving fabricating false evidence, fabricating false documents or forgery of records, valuable
documents, certificates or causing disappearance of evidence by way of destruction or concealment of the documents, fraudulent acts with the intention of causing bodily or
mental harm to a person, murder, miscarriage, hurt, wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement, assaults, use of criminal force, Kidnapping, abduction, forced labour,
unnatural offences, theft, extortion, robbery and dacoity, cheating, mischief, arson, criminal trespass, adultery, bigamy, fraudulent marriage, dowry torture and death,
defamation, criminal intimidation.
6. Victims of Offences relating to manufacture and sale of adulterated, substandard and prohibited drugs, liquor and food.
7. Victims of offences of smuggling, black marketing, unfair trade practice and evasion of tax.
8. Victims of Offences committed by Public Servants, such as negligence and inefficiency in discharging their duties, corruption, bribery and
misappropriation of public funds.
9. Victims of environmental pollution and wanton destruction of flora and fauna and public nuisance.
10. Victims of offences pertaining to election.
11. Victims who are also offenders as perpetrators of crimes such as drunkenness, consummation of narcotic drugs, gambling attempts to commit
suicide and prostitution, which are otherwise known as victimless crimes.
12. Victims who create a compelling situation in which the offenders reacts violently by committing a criminal act. Sometimes the victim provokes
the offender to commit the crime. Victims of affray, free fight and rioting may also be included in this category.
 Thus the victims of crime and abuse of power can be classified as Victim of offences committed by private individuals and Victims of abuse of power by the
State.
Of the above category of victims of crime, the victims of abuse of power by lawful authority constitutes an important class of victims, for the victims of
abuse of power finds it very difficult to get the redressed as the wrong doer is none else than the State which is armed with legislative and administrative powers. It is
difficult for the victims of abuse of power to establish that they are the victims of State violence. Hence, this category of victims needs more care and attention.

CHAPTER III
STATUS AND ROLE OF VICTIM IN CRIME

3.1 VICTIM OFFENDER RELATIONSHIP

3.2 INTERACTION BETWEEN THE CRIMINAL AND THE VICTIM
3.3 VICTIM INSTIGATTHEE CRIMINAL
3.4 ROLE OF VICTIM IN CRIME: MODELS
3.5 STUDIES RELATED TO ROLE OF VICTIM IN CRIME
3.6 ROLE OF VICTIM IN IDENTIFICATION OF CRIMINAL AND IN GETTING PUNISHMENT TO THE CRIMINAL

Over the last twenty years interest in victims has increased and today it is central to the subject to professionals, to officials and to the public. The media have given
increased attention to the victim and the politicians have responded by appearing to improve the lot of the Victim as victim is seen as someone who is helpless, innocent and
has not contributed to the criminality in any way. This idea of an innocent victim is important in deciding whether compensation should be paid whether and to what extent
the criminal should compensate or perform reparation to the victim whether victims should be believed and lastly it might also affect the criminals sentence by court after
conviction. Therefore these perceptions are central to criminal justice system indicating the importance of the role and status of Victim in Crime.

It is now believed that many a time the victim induces or facilitates the commission of crime. There are certain offences in which the victim plays a very important role and
works towards the success of crime, e.g., abortion, prostitution. The study of Victim –offender relationship is therefore, considered necessary today for determining the
question of guilt of the offender and for fixing up the nature and amount of penalty for the offender.

Thus in the study of any crime status and role of the victim is very important. The status and role of victim in crime has been analysed under following heads
______________________________________________________________________
3.1_VICTIM –OFFENDER RELATIONSHIP_______________________________

The relationship between the offender and his victim is of great significance in crime. Wolfgang in his study of homicides found that family members, relatives, close friends
and acquaintances have specific relationship in both victim- precipitated and non-victim precipitated groups. In India, D.P. Singh found that in nearly one-fourth of cases, the
dacoity-victim belonged to the village/mohalla (neighbourhood) of one or another gang member. In most cases, acquaintances of the gang leaders/members were
responsible for the raids. In another study of murders, D.P. Singh (1980) found that a large number of murderers had murdered their family members, followed by
neighbours, friends and others. Rajan and Krishna in their study of homicides in Delhi and Banglore in 1981 found that 22 to 39% victims get murdered by relatives. Prasad
in his study of female murderers in 1981 found that 40% had murdered their husbands while the rest had murdered their children, husband’s concubine, some family
members and so on.

Dr. Ram Ahuja conducted two empirical studies one in 1967-68 on crimes committed by women which included 136 murders committed by women, and the other on crimes
committed by males against females (that is one in which the victim was a woman) in 1985-86 in which 33 murders were studied. Both the studies has analysed the aspect
of homogeneity and heterogeneity along with various other aspects. Taking 169 murders in the two studies together, it was found that homogeneity in age between
offenders and the victims existed in 39.4% cases and heterogeneity in 60.6% cases. In terms of sex, the homogeneity was found only in 13.9% cases and heterogeneity in
86.1% cases. Kinship relationship was found between the offenders and the victims in 84% cases. In 74.6% cases, the victim was the member of the offender’s family
(spouse: 50.9%, child 10.70%, secondary Kin (son’s wife, son’s son): 10.1% tertiary Kin (husband’s brother’s wife, husband’s brother’s son, etc): 2.95) while in 9.5% cases;
the victim was a kin from outside the family. Of the remaining 165 cases, the victim belonged to offenders ‘s neighbourhood in 8.3% cases, to offender’s village in 6.5%cases
and the victim was a total strangers in 1.2% cases. This underlines the need for focusing on primary relationship in murders committed by men or women.
Homogeneity and heterogeneity in sex, age and race have been studied in offender-victim relationship by scholars in the United States also. Berg and Fox in a study of 500
male and female murders in Albama in the United States in 1950 found more homogeinity than heterogeneity in offender-victim relations. Sutherland in a study of 324
female murderers in 1950 found significantly heterogeneity in offender-victim relationship. Edwin Driver in his study of 144 cases of murder in M.P. in India in 1961 found
striking homogeneity.
_____________________________________________________________________
3.2 INTERACTION BETWEEN THE CRIMINAL AND THE VICTIM________

Eleen Berger in Psychological relationship between the criminal and his victim wrote that in all types of crime there are two individuals involved
a. The Criminal
b. The Victim

Hence to understand the crime in all aspects the study of victim is also very important. Berger was of the opinion that there is a mutual relation and psychological interaction
between the criminal and the victim. Ellen Berger has said ‘There is some degree of mutuality between the offender and the victim. To know the offender completely, we
must also be acquainted with his contemporary partner- the victim. From a certain perspective, the victim may shape or mould the offender. A careful investigation of many
offences reveals a psychological interaction between offender and victim that makes one distinguishable from the other.’

Schultz also in his book Crime in Delinquency in 1968 explained that the Aggressor and the victim are not two contradictory concepts. Aggressor is not always guilty and
criminal and in the same way victim is also not innocent always. Victim and the criminal are two mutual exchangeable words. Hence the study of victim is necessitated in the
practical explanation of crime.Shultz held that ‘The concepts of aggressor and victim are not always absolutely opposite. The aggressor is not always guilty and the victim is
not always innocent. The terms ‘victims’ and ‘aggressor’ are sometimes interchangeable. The personality of the victim as a cause of the offence is sometimes more significant
than that of the offender.
_______________________________________________________________________
3.3 VICTIM INSTIGATESS THE CRIMINAL _______________________________

Berger was of the opinion that victim instigates the criminal for criminal behaviour. Garofalo too noted that the victim might provoke another individual or
attack and though the provocation be slight, if perceived by an egoistic attacker, it might be sufficient to result in homicide.

Shultz also in his above mentioned book has explained in detail that the victim motivates the criminal for criminality or for the violation of law. Schultz
explaining how a victim contributes to the offence has pointed out four mtheods which are as follows:

a. Direct Motivation
b. Indirect Motivation
c. Omission of normal Preventive Measures
d. Emotional Pathology
e.
__________________________________
3.3.1.__DIRECT MOTIVATION______

Schultz explained that the victim motivates the criminal directly. This he does by motivating opposing reactions in the criminal that is by provoking or
initiating a hostile action on the offender. For example during a heated argument, one party hands the other party a gun and knowing fully well the other’s hostile mood,
accuses him of not having ‘the guts’ to shoot.
___________________________________________
3.3.2. INDIRECT MOTIVATION_________

Schultz also pointed out that the victim can also motivate criminal indirectly. This is in direct contradiction to direct motivation that is by indirect
invitation to initiation. In this the victim invites the criminal acts. For example an unmarried girl goes to a doctor and requests him to abort her and offers him good amount
of money and unfortunately the girl dies in the operation theatre. Then this death is due to indirect reasons by the victims.
Or in another case a woman attacks her husband with a knife and snatching the same knife, the husband kills her. Or suppose a person ‘A’ has given a loan of Rs. 5,000 to
another person with the condition that he would return it in two months. When he fails to repay it even in six months and also tells ‘ A’ that he has not taken any loan from
him and he is free to take any action, ‘A’ assaults ‘B’, who is then hospitalized.
___________________________________________________________
3.3.3._OMISSION OF NORMAL PREVENTIVE MEASURES_____

The another role of the victim in motivating criminal act is non-abidance of general preventive measures. For example if the person leaves his vehicle without locking it on
the main road and somebody takes it away. Further, in case of scooter, the engine is left running. Or some other person keeps the jewellery in the presence of his servant in
the almirah without locking it and the servant run away with the jewellery. In all these cases this is so because the thief gets an easy chance to steal it.
________________________________________
3.3.4._EMOTIONAL PATHOLOGY_________

Schultz also presented the another role of the victim in criminal acts, which is emotional pathology that is by unconsciously inviting the offence through his/her (Victim’s)
emotional pathology. Schultz is of the opinion that by emotional disintegration and dissociation the victim can also motivate a criminal for criminal act. A psychopath
individual because of some sentimental reasons can also motivate another person for criminal act. For example, an engineer’s wife accepts gifts on the sly from her
husband’s contractor and tells her husband about it after a fortnight. The husband assaults her so severely that she becomes deaf and is admitted to a hospital.
_____________________________________________________________________
3.4_ROLE OF VICTIM IN CRIME : MODELS ___________________________

Walter Reckless in his book The crime problem presented two models of the role of victim in crime, which explains the role of victim in criminal act done. These are
3.4.1. Criminalized Victim Model
3.4.2. Criminal Victim Model
________________________________________________
3.4.1._CRIMINALIZED VICTIM MODEL___________

This type of model presented by Walter Reckless is found in most of the cases. This model is related with those criminal acts, which is initiated by the criminal himself. It is
related with those individuals and things who possess those things.

If the act end by the theft of a thing kept in the store or of any vehicle parked at a place, or robbery of money in bank or house then these all acts are within the purview of
the criminalised victim individual Model. But criminologist if required can relate the thing with the individual because some valuable objects can also motivate criminal for
criminal behaviour. These types of criminal act Reckless keeps under Criminalized Object related model, which he calls as criminalized victim model.
___________________________________________
3.4.2._CRIMINAL – VICTIM MODEL__________

This model presented by Reckless is less frequent as compared to the first model. In this model the victim initiates the interaction and he gives some signals to the criminal,
which is translated by the criminal. Thus as per this model according to Reckless the victim creates criminal behaviour in the criminal and motivates him to commit crime. In
this case it should not be taken that the criminal starts the criminal act. In this model the criminal do not acts until he comes into the contact of the victim. Hence in this case
it would be better to consider that the possible criminal is present who is turned to a criminality due to victim and victim’s wrong behaviour.
_____________________________________________________________________
3.5_STUDIES RELATED TO THE ROLE OF VICTIM IN CRIME___________

In different types of crime the status and role of victim was found to be very important. Marvin Wolfgang has said ‘At present, societal attitudes are generally positive
towards the victim and negative towards the offender, who is often feared as violent and dangerous threat to others. There is a great need to change this attitude. Two types
of studies may be quoted in the analysis of victim’s role in crime; one on sex offences and the other on murders. Even in Sex offence and murder related crime the status and
role of victim plays an important role which has been analysed under following heads:

a. Role of Victim in Sex Related Offences

b. Role of Victim in Murder related crimes
___________________________________________________
 3.5.1_ROLE OF VICTIM IN SEX RELATED OFFENCES___

Many sex offence related studies shows that victim motivates the criminal and unconsciously they cooperate in criminal act and invites criminal behaviour. In maximum sex
related crimes the criminal is a known person of the victim and the criminal act is not accidental. In a study of 73 sex offences in 1955, Weiss found that 60% victims were
‘participative’ in the offence, Glueck in his study of 185 sex offences in 1956 found the victims ‘seductive’ in 21% cases, Radzinowicz in his study of 1994 sex offences in 1957
found the victim’s ‘non-objecting’ in 40% cases and Gagnon in his study of 330 female child victims of sex offences in 1965 found the victims ‘collaborative’ only in 8% cases.
_____________________________________________________
3.5.2. ROLE OF VICTIM IN MURDER RELATED CRIME__

Like sex related crime in murder-related crime also the role of Victim is very significant. Porterfield is of the opinion that in the process of murder the interaction between
the murderer and the victim varies from total incorporation to full cooperation. Dr. Ram Ahuja in his study on 136 females presented in Female Murderers in India- A
sociological Study in I JSW found that the victims were ‘provocative’ in 53% cases. The victim’s ‘provocation’ in victim precipitated murders was found in the form of
infidelity in 12% cases, ill-treatment in 24% cases, use of vile names during arguments in 18% cases, striking a blow in altercation in 4% cases, use of some weapon in 4%
cases and victim’s attempt to molest ego (offender) in 7% cases. Wolfgang in his study of 588 murders found victim’s provocation in 25% cases while Hentig found it in 85%
cases. Victims were found either collaborative or seductive or non-objecting or participative.
_________________________________________________________________________3.6 ROLE OF VICTIM IN IDENTIFICATION OF CRIMINAL AND IN GETTING
PUNISHMENT TO THE CRIMINAL

The role of Victim in identification of Criminal and in Getting Punishment to the criminal is immense that is in other words the role of Victims in the criminal Justices process
is also of utmost importance. As identification of the criminals by the victims helps in understanding the cause of crime as well as the forms of crime and its seriousness.
Mostly the police use the victim in search of criminals and it is mostly the victim who is presented before court as the witness so the criminal can be given right punishment.
Even Ellen Berger wrote that to study crime and criminal holistically it is important to study the victim as a whole.

ow a days it is often argued that the Victims place in the criminal justice system has been over strengthened up setting the balance between the State and the offender where
a crime is seen as an attack against the State and the society as a whole and not just an attack on the Victim.

The victim’s role is largely of reporting offences and giving evidence if so requested. Although these are essential to the system, but it do not furnish the victim with any
decision making power. Until the 1960s this feeling was enhanced by the lack of compensation or restitution for the victim. Although there was some, fairly minimal,
legislative provision for compensation. It was rarely used and the victim had no right to compensation and no expectation that he would be paid. Thus apart from feeling
ignored by the criminal justice system, victim often feel they are being used by the courts. They were expected to report to the police but are not always made to feel
comfortable in doing this. For most victims the police station remains a fairly uninviting environment. This reduces the effectiveness of crime control as it increases the
offender’s chances of getting away undetected. If the victims are asked to identify offenders they are rarely screened and many through fear of facing the offender, fail to
identify him or her. When called to give evidence they are rarely permitted to relate their experiences in their own words but are forced to answer questions, which may
actually misrepresent their account of what occurred. Furthermore if they refuse to cooperate they may be prosecuted because they would thereby be obstructing the course
of justice. The proceedings are indeed mostly adapted to the needs of the State, which has also been victimized in that its peace and its rules have been broken.

The criminal justice system is charged with processing cases from the point of victimization, through investigation, arrest, prosecution and sanctions. At each point along this
continuum, criminal justice agencies and professionals have opportunities and obligations to provide victims with assistance, services and accommodations to ease their
difficulties in what is already a very trying, tragic time. The criminal justice system can minimize and avoid inflicting "secondary victimization" (by the CJ system itself) that
has often characterized much of the plight of victims of crime.
Thus Victims of crime deserve rights and services in the criminal justice system that begin at the point of reporting crime to the police, and continue through the entire
criminal justice and corrections processes.

CHAPTER IV
VICTIMIZATION

4.1 REPEAT VICTIMIZATION

4.2 VICTIM PRECIPITATIONS AND LIFE STYLE
4.3 VICTIM’S LIFE STYLE AND CRIMINALITY
 4.4 CRIME RELATED PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAUMA
4.5 CLASSICAL CONDITIONING THEORY
4.6 POST VICTIMIZATION FACTORS
4.7 VICTIM EXPECTATIONS
4.8 WELFARE OF VICTIM
4.9 SUPPORT AND SERVICES FOR VICTIM

The National Crime Victimization Survey indicates that the annual number of victimization is about 37 million incidents. Being the target or a victim of rape, robbery or
assault is a terrible burden and one that can have considerable consequences. Whether the effects are physical, emotional, financial or all three, the scare are indelible. A
violent criminal victimization is a real life classical conditioning experience in which being attacked is an unconditioned stimulus that produce unconditioned responses of
fear, anxiety, terror, helplessness, pain and other negative emotions. Any stimuli that are present during the attack are paired with the attack and become conditioned
stimuli capable of producing conditioned responses of fear, anxiety, terror, helplessness and other negative emotions. However the property losses are only a small part of
the toll crime takes on victim. In addition productivity losses are caused by injury, medical costs, pain and emotional trauma. Victims who suffer serious physical injury often
require medical treatment. The suffering endured by crime victims does not end when their attackers leaves the scene of the crime. They may suffer more victimization by
the justice system. While the crime is fresh in their minds, victims may find that the police interrogation following the crime handled callously, with innuendoes or
insinuations that they were somehow at fault. Meanwhile the victim may have difficulty learning what is going on in the case. Property is often kept for a long time as
evidence and may never be returned.

Victims may also suffer economic hardship due to wages lost while the victims testify in court. Additionally, time may be wasted when they appear in Court only to have the
case postponed or dismissed. They may find that authorities are influenced to their fear of retaliation if they cooperate in the offender’s prosecution. They may also fear
testifying in court and being humiliated by defense attorneys. Researches in victimization findings are stable and repetitive and they indicate that victimization is not
random but a function of personal and ecological factor.This shows that like crime, victimization has stable patterns and trends. Many victimization occurs in home and
many victims are the targets of relatives and loved ones. There are a number of theories of victimization. One view called victim precipitation is that victims provoke
criminals. More common are life style theories that suggests that victims put themselves in danger by engaging in high-risk activities such as going out late in night, living in
high crime area and associating with high-risk peers. The routine activities theory maintains that a pool of motivated offenders exists and that these offenders will take
advantage of unguarded, suitable targets. Thus Criminologists and Victimologists now consider victims and victimization a major focus of study.

______________________________________________________________________
4.1_REPEAT VICTIMIZATION__________________________________________

There may be stable pattern s of behaviour that encourages victimization and some people who maintain then may become chronic victims – people who
are constantly the target of predatory crimes. Most research efforts in fact show that prior victimization is a strong predictor of future victimization. Individuals and
household who have been crime victims maintain a significantly higher chance of future victimization than people who have remained non-victims.

David Finkelhor and Nancy Asigian find that three specific types of characteristics increases the potential for victimization:

a. Target Vulnerability – The victims’ physical weakness or psychological distress renders them incapable of resisting or deterring
crime and makes them easy targets.
b. Target Gratifiability – Some Victims have some quality, possession, Skill or attribute that an offender wants to obtain, use, have
access to or manipulate. Having attractive possessions such as a leather coat may make one vulnerable to predatory crime.

c. Target Antagonism – Some characteristics in crease risk because they arouse anger, jealousy or destructive impulses in potential
offenders. Being gay or feminate for example may bring on underserved attacks in the street being argumentative and alcoholic may provoke barroom assault.

Victimization may also be an offender’s rational choice. Once an offender learns the weaknesses of victims, he or she may use them over and over again.
For example, if an abusive husband finds out that his battered wife will not call police, he repeatedly victimizes her or if a hate crime is committed and the police do not
respond to reported offenses, the perpetrator learn they have little to fear from the law.
 ________________________________________________________________________
4.2 VICTIMIZATION TYPES_____________________________________________

Wolf gang has outlined five types of victimization

a. Primary victimization involving personalized or individual victims
b. Secondary victimization where the victim is an important target of the offender (e.g. a thief in a department store, a person traveling without a
ticket on a roadways, bus etc
c. Tertiary victimization which affects the public or the administration of society
d. Mutual victimization which concerns those victims who themselves are offenders in a given mutually consensual act (e.g. adultery)
e. No victimization, which is an act of negligible significance where there is no immediately recognizable victim.

________________________________________________________________________
4.3 VICTIM PRECIPITATIONS AND LIFESTYLE___________________________

Ideas of what constitutes a victim have long been a part of the discussion of whether victims precipitate the offence against themselves. This question is
one of the earliest issues in the study of victims.

Wolfgang has used the term ‘victim-precipitated’ for crimes in which the victim is a direct , positive precipitator. The role of the victim is characterized by his having been
the first (in using weapon, in striking a blow, in verbal abuse) in the crime situation to use physical force directed against the subsequent offender. However, mutual
quarrels and wordy altercations do not constitute sufficient provocation under the law and these are not included in the meaning of ‘victim-precipitated crime’.

Von Hentig (1948) suggested that the relations between criminal and victim were complex and central to the criminal act. He argued that the law tended to separate criminal
from victim almost totally, but that such a division was unrealistic. At times, he claimed, it may be unclear who is acting and who is being acted upon, and at others, the
eventual victim may actually precipitate the activity, which results in the victimization, for example, by being the first to resort to violence. Therefore he is postulating that in
certain instances it is the victim who determines whether there will be any criminal activity. Von Hentig’s work was not based on any empirical study and was intended only
as a starting point to further discussion.

Mendelson (1947) looked more closely at the idea of victim-precipitated incidents and classified Victims by reference to the degree of their culpability for the crime. In this
way, to a greater or lesser extent, he blamed the victim. He had six categories of victim ranging from the totally innocent, to the largely guilty victim, often one who had been
the first aggressor but who had come off worst.

This idea of victim precipitation was expanded and more carefully considered by Wolfgang (1958) when he considered homicide cases.He concluded that in certain cases the
victim, by his actions, actually determined whether the crime was committed, for example, by being the first to turn to physical violence.

Victim precipitation can be either active or passive.

a. Active Precipitation – Active precipitation occurs when victims act provocatively , use threat or fighting words or even attack first.
b. Passive Victimization – Passive Victimization occurs when the victim exhibits some personal characteristics that unknowingly either threatens or encourages the
attacker. The crime can occur because of personal conflict – for example when two people compete over a job, promotion, love interest or some other scarce and coveted
commodity
A few examples of victim-precipitated crimes may be cited:

On several occasions, a man threatens to kill his wife since he suspects her on having illicit relations with his friends. One day, he assaults her with his hands and feet while
she is cooking food in the kitchen. The wife suddenly picks up a knife from a table nearby and warns the husband against further beating her. In the vening struggle, the
husband falls on the knife and gets killed.

In another case, the victim is the aggressor in a fight, having struck his opponent several times. People try to intervene but the victim persists. Finally, the offender retaliates
with blows causing the victim to fall and his head on a stone, as a result of which he is seriously injured.
A landlord uses vile names against his tenant during an argument. The tenant tries to pacify him and even threatens to report him to the police. The landlord gives him an
iron-rod and dares him to use it against him. Being repeatedly challenged, the tenant snatches the rod from his landlord and hits him.

The idea of the precipitation of the offence is particularly strong where cases of violence and rape are concerned. In the case of rape, the notion of precipitation has been
central to the way in which the criminal justice system has treated women who complain of having been raped. It is generally thought that if a woman has ‘led on’ the man
who raped her then she may have provoked the attack, and this should lead to a reduced sentence.

Similarly, it can be argued that if the victim places the criminal in a tempting situation this can be seen as precipitating the criminal activity, as when someone walks down
the street alone at night with a bag bulging with money. Again this idea has been used in rape cases, where even asking for a lift with no suggestion of sexual invitations has
been found to be provocative.

It is an example of the danger involved in taking the concept of victim precipitation too literally. Can it illuminate the phenomenon of criminality without moving
responsibility from criminal to victim? Probably not. Even stating that the crime happened here and now against this victim because the victim did or said something
suggests that if the criminal had not been so stimulated, the crime would not have occurred. Victim precipitation is therefore a fairly dangerous concept, which leads to
victim blaming. According to Miers {1992), victim blaming, or at least placing more responsibility on all citizens to avoid victimisation, is one of the dangers inherent in the
enhanced position given to victims under modern responses to the victim movement.

_______________________________________________________________________
4.3 VICTIM LIFESTYLES AND CRIMINALITY____________________________

The claim is made that different lifestyles, particularly how much time is allocated to leisure activities, affect the probability of bring in places where crime
is likely, and with people who are likely to commit those crimes. It might also lead to leaving property accessible for others to take advantage.

Various Studies Concluded that individuals who tended to have an increased risk of victimisation were male under 30 years, old, single, widow or divorced,
spent several evenings a week out, drank heavily and assaulted others. The last three of these are obviously lifestyle Variables. They relate to activities, which increase the
likelihood of such People being victims. The basis for viewing these behavioral factors in this way is obvious enough. For personal victimisation to occur, there needs to be a
meeting between criminal and victim. Thus for street crime the element of going out more frequently will clearly increase the likelihood of such meetings, placing the
individual at higher risk. Similarly it has been noted that many such offences take place in the evening, particularly in or around drinking establishments or between those
who have been drinking, which suggests that going out in the evening and frequenting drinking establishments will increase the likelihood of victimisation and property
offences are more likely to occur if the property is left empty, open, or not protected by locks or alarms.

The first three of the variables in the above example are demographic Variables, but they too are related to lifestyle. In most cultures, certain lifestyles are
thought normal for given groups, and are therefore more or less socially encouraged or discouraged within such groups.
An important reservation is that the lifestyle victimisation criteria so far discussed hold only for street crime or for crime committed on personal property.
They totally ignore the private victimisation, referred to above in the areas of domestic violence and of sexual violence committed within relationships of family ties or of
trust.
Victims of these offences may find that they are safer outside the home rather than in it. They also ignore the fact that certain groups are sought out to be
victimized. These are thus likely to suffer relatively high rates of victimisation, whether they remain in home or venture out onto the street. Racial minorities are especially
prone to such treatment.
One theory which goes some way to answering some of these problems about identifying victims was postulated by Sparks (1982) He highlighted six
factors which he considers important in this area. They are vulnerability, opportunity, attractiveness, facilitation, precipitation and impunity.

a. Vulnerability – Vulnerability is used by Spark to cover a number of possibilities. The first resembles the victim’s types discussed by Von Hentig (1948).
These are at special risk, not because of something they do, but just as a result of their personal attributes such as being weak (mentally physically or both), old, or young.
Other areas of vulnerability beyond the control of the individual may arise from variations of status, economic position or environment. Status Vulnerability may arise
because that individual belongs to a weak grouping such as minority races, women or children. Similarly, people living in a particular area or environment may increase
their vulnerability. This may be connected to economic vulnerability.
 b. Opportunity – Opportunity has two levels. First, it refers to availability. It is not possible to steal something which is securely locked away or which the
victim does not possess. At this level, the concept is trite. Sparks uses it rather to consider the occasions on which the victim has made victimisation more likely, perhaps by a
particular behaviour pattern. This is lifestyle by another name. More general lifestyle changes, such as increased leisure, may also have increased the opportunity for
criminality (Smith (1982)). The danger of giving too much weight to such considerations is that it may lead to a reduction in the culpability and denunciation of criminals.
c. Attractiveness – Attractiveness refers to how tempting something may be to a particular criminal. It is a relative idea, where the criminal is supposed to
weigh up the case of attaining the item against the possible gain from its possession. Where risk is low and the possible gain high, then the object is attractive, especially if it
is spatially accessible. Attractive targets, both from the point of view of ease of access and possible gains, tend to be heavily concentrated in inner city areas it is thus
unsurprising that these areas experience high crime rates.
d. Facilitation – Facilitation refers to whether a position of special risk has been deliberately, negligently or unconsciously created by the victim. An
example might be failure to fit locks or alarms in an area with high rates of burglary. It is a dangerous extension of moving blame away from the criminal and onto the victim.
e. Precipitation – Precipitation was seen by Sparks as particularly relevant to cases of inter-personal violence and rape, and most of these ideas were
discussed above. He expands on these by seeing them as of most relevance when the offender and victim are known to one another, often very close. For example, he writes
of the wife who kills her husband in his sleep because he has repeatedly beaten her.
f. Impunity – Impunity is the final category defined by Sparks and related to situations where the victim is unlikely to complain, or to be believed if they do
complain. The crime can thus be perpetrated without fear of being detected. This is often the case when sexual offences are committed against, women and children where
the victim is both unlikely to complain and unlikely to be believed. It also applies to cases against criminals, especially prisoners down and outs, racial minorities, illegal
immigrants prostitutes (male and female), etc.

Most of Spark’s categories carry with them the notion that the victim carries some responsibility for crime. His message seems to be that potential victim
should be encouraged to avoid dangerous situations for themselves or their property by staying indoors or keeping their property out of sight. If these cannot be avoided,
they should protect themselves by only going out in groups, or in well in street, or by securing their property. Similar ideas were used by the Conservative Government in
1990 when explaining high crime rates, and they suggested that individuals alter their lifestyle so as to reduce criminality. These suggestions not only push the responsibility
for crime towards its victims, but would also be very restrictive on the liberty of the potential victim. That is not to say that certain reasonable measures such as locks on
doors and good neighbourly activities, which might reduce crime, should not be encouraged, but it does warn against using these ideas ostensibly to protect the individual
whilst actually vastly decreasing their personal freedoms.
______________________________________________________________________
4.4 CRIME-RELATED PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAUMA______________________

Most crime victims achieve some significant recovery sometime between one and three months (1-3 months) after the crime. During this time period, they
are shocked, surprised, and terrified about what has happened to them. They often have feelings of unreality, thinking, "this can't be happening to me." Many will also report
having periods of rapid heart rate and hyperventilation. Such physiological and emotional reactions are normal "flight or fight" responses that occur in dangerous situations.
In the days, weeks, and first two or three months after the crime, most violent crime victims continue to have high levels of fear, anxiety, and generalized distress. This
distress disrupts their ability to concentrate and to perform simple mental activities that require concentration. They are preoccupied with the crime (e.g., they think about it
a great deal of the time; they talk about it, they have flashbacks and bad dreams about it). They are often concerned about their safety from attack and about the safety of
their family members. They are concerned that other people will not believe them or will think that they were to blame for what happened. Many victims also experience
negative changes in their pre-crime beliefs that the world is a safe place where you can trust other people, and where people get the things they deserve out of life.
Long-term psychological trauma also takes on various forms. The DSM-IV diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder refers to a characteristic set of
symptoms that develop after exposure to an extreme stressor.

Sexual assault, physical attack, robbery, mugging, being kidnapped, child sexual assault, observing the serious injury or death of another person due to violent assault, and
learning about the violent personal assault or death of a family member or close friend are specifically mentioned in the DSM-IV as types of stressors that are capable of
producing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. When exposed to these stressor events, the person's response must (according to the DSM-IV) involve intense fear, helplessness,
or horror. Characteristic symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder include:

1. Persistent re-experiencing of the event (i.e., distressing dreams, distressing recollections, flashbacks, or emotional and/or physiological
reactions when exposed to something that resembles the traumatic event.)
2. Persistent avoidance of things associated with the traumatic event or reduced ability to be close to other people and have loving feelings
3. Persistent symptoms of increased arousal (i.e., sleep difficulties, outbursts of anger, difficulty concentrating, constantly being on guard,
extreme startle response).
 4. Duration of at least one month of symptoms.
5. Disturbance produces clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning.

The lifetime prevalence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder was significantly higher among crime victims than victims of other traumatic events (25.8% vs
9.4%). Rates of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder appear to be higher among victims who report crimes to the criminal justice system than among non-reporting victims.
There is also evidence that many crime victims with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder do not spontaneously recover without treatment, and that some crime victims have
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder years after they were victimized.
Long-term, crime-related psychological trauma is not limited to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Compared to people without a history of criminal
victimization, people with criminal victimization have been found to have significantly higher rates of major depression, thoughts of suicide, alcohol and drug problems,
panic disorders, agoraphobia, and obsessive-compulsive disorders.
In addition to these mental disorders and mental health problems, violent crime often results in profound changes in other aspects of the victims' life.
Many victims experience problems in their relationships with family and friends. Among the relationship problems they can experience is difficulty in sexual relations with
their partner.
Thus Psychological trauma impairs the ability and/or willingness of crime victims to cooperate with the criminal justice system. Victims must be treated
better by the criminal justice system because it cannot accomplish its mission without the cooperation of victims. Victims whose crime-related fear makes them reluctant to
report crimes to police or who are too terrified to testify, effectively make it impossible for the criminal justice system to accomplish its mission. Thus, it is important to
understand:________________________________________________________________________
4.5 CLASSICAL CONDITIONING THEORY__________________________ _____

Classical conditioning theory predicts that any stimuli present at the time of a violent crime are potential conditioned stimuli that will produce conditioned
fear, anxiety and other negative emotions when the victim encounters them. Thus, characteristics of the assailant (e.g., age, race, attire, distinctive features), or
characteristics of the setting (e.g., time of day, where the attack occurred, features of the setting) might become conditioned stimuli. Thus, a woman who exhibits a
conditioned fear response to the sight of her rapist might also experience fear to the stimulus of men who resemble the rapist through the process of stimulus generalization.
Eventually, this stimulus generalization process may result in the rape victim showing conditioned fear to all men.
The most common response to conditioned stimuli is avoidance behavior. Thus, there is a natural tendency for crime victims to avoid contact with such conditioned stimuli
and to escape from situations, which bring them in contact with such stimuli.

A second classical conditioning mechanism with important implications for understanding the behavior of crime victims is second-order conditioning. If a neutral stimulus is
paired with a conditioned stimulus (without presenting the unconditioned stimulus), this neutral stimulus becomes a second order conditioned stimulus that can also
produce a conditioned response. Thus, any stimuli present at the same time a crime-related conditioned stimulus is present can become a second-order conditioned
stimulus that also evokes fear, other negative emotions, and a strong tendency to engage in avoidance behavior. This is important for practitioners as police, prosecutors,
and victim service providers may become associated as a second-order conditioned stimulus.

Involvement with the criminal justice system requires crime victims to encounter many cognitive and environmental stimuli that remind them of the crime. These range
from:
 Having to look at the defendant in the courtroom.

 Having to think about details of the crime when preparing to testify.

 Confronting a member of "second-order conditioned stimuli" in the form of police, victim/witness advocates, and prosecutors.

Such avoidance behavior is generated by conditioned fear and anxiety, not by apathy. Avoidance can lead victims to cancel or not show up for appointments with criminal
justice system officers, or victim advocates.
______________________________________________________________________
4.6 POSTVICTIMIZATION FACTORS____________________________________

Two major post victimization factors are thought to play an important role in victim recovery from crime-related psychological trauma. The first is social support. In general,
most studies find that good relationships and support from family members and friends assist victims' recovery. Consequently, it is important to determine the extent and
supportiveness of a crime victim's potential social support network. Victims with little social support are probably more likely to need professional counseling
 The second major post victimization factor is the degree and nature of exposure to the criminal justice system. Although participation in the criminal
justice system is generally regarded as a negative factor in victims' recovery, there are some data suggesting that involvement with the criminal justice system need not
always have a negative effect. A positive experience, however, is largely reliant on treatment of victims that is comprehensive, sensitive and inclusive.

There is no question that the criminal justice system is stressful for victims. The whole point of making the criminal justice system more "victim friendly" is the assumption
that doing so may actually reduce the trauma to the victims. It is also reasonable to assume that being believed and treated well by the criminal justice system could make
things better for victims, notwithstanding the inherently stressful nature of the criminal justice system.
________________________________________________________________________
4.7 VICTIM EXPECTATIONS_____________________________________________

Most crime victims think that the criminal justice system should be responsible for providing them with counseling for crime-related psychological trauma. This is
particularly noteworthy because virtually all crime victims are eligible for crime victim compensation coverage for their mental health counseling. Clearly, a problem exists
because most crime victims expect the criminal justice system to provide them with access to counseling, but most victims -- including those with crime related Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder -- say they don't get the counseling they need.

________________________________________________________________________
4.8 Welfare Of Victim_____________________________________________________

the two main aspects of victimology is to study the role of victim in crime and the other aspect is related with the welfare of the victim which is prenented
below
1. in present context the State owns the responsibility to compensate the victim as the process of punishment is Govemntal.
2. the compensation to be given to the victim started in 1964 in England and Newzealand. Today almost most of the nation has the provision of
compensation for the victim..In India the compensation system started with Centrral Probation Act and Penal Coe in 1958. In India the compensation system is very feeble
as compared to nations.
3. Compensation is not given only to the victim but can also be given to his wife and his children.

______________________________________________________________________
4.9 SUPPORT AND SERVICES FOR VICTIMS____________________________

Victims have to compete with all other disadvantaged or unfortunate groups for the aid that may require. Therefore groups working for the victims must
both State their case and point out why their particular demands should be met. The plight of victims received recognition from both the Council Europe (in its 1983
convention and its 1985 guidelines) and t eh United nations (in their 1985 Declaration). Both International bodies included similar llists of victims neede the need to be
trearted with respect and dignity to be allowed access to the mechanism of justice and to legal processess which will provide them with redress for the harm done, offenders
should make restitution for the harm done to victims, their families or dependents and such restitution should be possible as a sentencing option in the criminal cases,
information for victims concerning the progress of the case allowing the views of the victim to be considered their personal interests are affected (as long as the accused is
not prejudiced) assisting victims through the legal process , use the informal dispute resolution such as medicine where appropriate , and material , medical , psychological
and social assistance for victims through governmental and community –based means (these are taken from the UN document). In 1990 in the United Kingdom the Victims
charter was published which largely set out in general terms the existing arrangement for victims.It includes items under most of the heads covered by the international
documents, but interestring ly it omits any mention of informal dispute resolution. The charters main limiting factor is that there is no means of enforcement so that it does
not give victims any rights , but it dioes represent an official recognition of the interestrs of victims and provides victims organizations with a powerful tool to lobby
parliament. Its strength lies in the provision of welfare based su[pport rather than rights in the criminal justice system. This perpetuates the way in which the needs of
victims were anyway being addressed in Britain , by twi very different approaches first , opfficially through the criminal justice system and secondly unofficalily through a
largely voluntary network of support schemes , most notably the VSS. In both approaches the victim is generally provided with opportunities rather than rights.

The victims are now an integral part of criminological studies. Their importance in the criminal justice system is increasing, but they still lack basic powers
and rights or interests which will be legally protected within that system. It is important that the study of the victim does not take over from the study of the criminal, and so
allow the criminal to escape culpability and social condemnation. If the needs of Victims are kept in Perspective, they must also be taken more seriously by those in
authority, not least because without their cooperation the system quite literally could not operate.
 Recently the interests of victims have gained a prominence in both media and political rhetoric. This hift has usually been associated with a call for greater
law and order. Some argue that in media and political discussions and in policy changes, the interests of victims have been hijacked to serve the needs of media
entertainment and political power (for some discussion of this see mawby and walklate (1994),(especially pp. 1321) and Elias (1993)). It is thus necessary to ask how many
of the changes which are claimed to be in the interests of victims actually serve those interests To respond to such a question some assumption about the needs, interests
and desires of victims have to be made. Here it is assumed that victims wish to be afforded dignity and have assurances that their lives will not blighted by the victimization
in the future. Thsy may also wiah to see the perpetrator delat with . With this in mind , a number of new initiatives and suggested changes will be considered . One
prominenet recent change is in increased powers of the police and other criminal justice agencies. The polic began under the Police and crimnal evidence Act 1984 and
culminaterd in the criminal justice and public order Act 1994 which vastly increased the powers of the criminal justice agency and criminalized certain types of protests and
ways of life withoutr providing much in the way of protection for individuals. It has had detrimental effects on the rights of suspects and defendents may well lead to
miscarriage of justice wrongful convictions which not only breach the rights of the person convicted but are also clearly contrary to the interest of victime and of justice .
This type of initiative , although usually presented as being in the interests of victims , in fact rarely improves their lot and may ultimately be damaging to them.

CHAPTER V
COMPENSATION TO THE VICTIM

The traditional concept of criminal justice administration which connotes, legislation of penal law, enforcement of the law and detection of the crime, trial of offenders and
execution of sentence passed by a court of law does not comprehend the duty of the State to alleviate the sufferings of the innocent victims and or their families for the loss
of life, property and reputation and for bodily mental injury in consequence of a crime. 1An insight into the evolution of law regarding compensation to the victims of crime
and abuse of power, thus reveals that in the course of history of civil and criminal administration of justice system, the payment of compensation to the victims of crime
irrespective of the civil and criminal dichotomy hag come to stay. Over the years several doctrinal principles have been developed concerning the need and justification for
payment of compensation to the victims of crime be it civil law case like torts or be it a criminal law case.2

In the changed scenario, the State playing a predominant role in the socio-scenario justice programmes for the people’s development, has also made the State often an
agency encroaching upon the constitutional protection extended to the citizens in the matter of life, liberty and property, In the ultimate analysis not only the wrongful acts
of private individuals but also the wrongful acts of the State are becoming the cause of worry of the victims. It is in this back drop that the activist judiciary through its
reasoned decisions and the efforts of various criminologists, scholars etc over the years that new vistas have been opened up in the annals of jurisprudence, concerning
compensation to victims of crime and abuse of power who has been hitherto a neglected lot in the criminal justice system.The idea of relief and compensation to victims is
not a new one.earlier too, our laws provided for compensation to the victim of accidents. In some cases, the law combined punishment of the offender with monetary
satisfactions for the injured party as a means of forestalling enmity through counter-violenceby the victim’s kin. In the 1950s an English reformer initiated a modem
movement to bring the victim back into the criminal justice equation.

Branes and Teeters in ‘New Horizons of cRiminology’ said ‘our barbarian ancestors were wiser and more just than we are today, for they adopted the theory of restitution to
the injured, whereas we have abandoned this practice to the detriment of all concerned.’

there are no imprived compensation awards which Courts can botyh offer and make more important than such sentence as the fine. There are new funds available to
agencies who offer help and supports to vitim The initial focus of criminologists were only on th aspect of punishment but the focus started shiftimg when tahy encountered
with the fact that the person who is victim of crime is getting nothing out of the whole process of the criminal justice system or is getting a so called satisfaction by seeing the
offender punished. Therefore jurists, penologist etc in all countries stsrted giving their full attention to the cause of victim in form of compensation and hence the whole
debate stsrted about ways , means and extent of compensation.
_______________________________________________________________________
5.1_MEANING__________________________________________________________

The word compensation in literal sense means a thing which compensates or is given to compensate (for), a counter balancing feature or factor, amends,
recompens, money given to compensate loss or injury, or for requisitioned property. When we talk about Compensation to the Victim it means somtheing given in
recompense i.e. equivalent rendered. The whole purpose of compensation is to make good tah loss sustain by the victim or legal representative of the deceased. Generally

1
Justice B.N. Pataik, ‘ Compensatation to the victims of crime : Indian Law and U.N. Resolutions,’
Criminal Law Journal, Vol.103, Part 1165, 1/97, p.2.
2
S.N. jain, Money compensatation for administrative wrongs through Article 32, Journal of Indian Law
Institute, 118 (19830.
when we talk about compensation in the present context it limits to monetary compensation which is calculated on the basis of two head i.e. pecuniary loss and non-
pecuniary loss.

‘Victim Compensation’ refers to payments made from State funds to victims of crime.Advocates of victim compensation have argued that since the State is responsible for
protecting its citizens from crime. Advocates of victim compensation have argued that since the State is responsible for protecting its citizen from crime, the failure to do so
obligates the State to indemnify those who are victimized.The State is believed to be responsible to the victims because imprisonment prevents offenders from paying
damages.the general welfare policy also is cited as justification for governmental assistance to the unfortunate victims of crime.

_______________________________________________________________________
4.2 THE PRINCIPLE______________________________________________________

The principle of payment of compensation to the victim of crime was evolved on the ground that it is the duty of the welfare State to protect the fundamental rights of the
citizen 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 its subject, equitable justice etc.

______________________________________________________________________
4.3 THE HISTORY______________________________________________________

The first compensation scheme was set up in 1963 when New Zealand introduced a State compensation Scheme, supposedly removing the need for the victim to rely upon
the offender being wealthy. Britain followed a year later with a State compensatory scheme for victims of violent crime. This scheme was non ststutory and was only
formalized in legislation in the criminal justice Act 1988. under it Victims have no right to compensation and payment is at the discretion of the criminal Injuries
Compensation Board (CICB). Indeed, the system was set up without any consultation of victims and there was no real evidence that victims of violence wanted to be
compensated by the State. It originated more from a wish to forestall possible complaints of lenient punishment at a time when criminal justice was pursuing a
rehabilitative ideal, whilst it was also seen as an extension of the welfare principle of State support of those in need which was strong at the time. It was never considered as
part of a wider idea for victim’s rights.

One of the most important qualities to qualify for compensation is that the victim be adjudged ‘innocent’ in other words , the the claim is not fraudulent and that in suffering
the injury the victim was not at fault.This condition generally excluded cases where the victim may have participated in the violence. Any payment is reduced by an
assessment of the amount for which the victim can be said to be responsible or to have contributed to the injury. It si important to note that compensation is not means
tested , nor is it set to meet a particular need. It is set by amount of injury the CICB assesses the victim to have suffered and not by the help which that person may need. The
system compensates only those who suffer due to criminal violence and therefore excluded those who suffer physical injury following other crimes e.eg., after breaches of
the factories legislation or as a result of driving offences. The criminal is not permitted to gain from any payment therefore excludes those who suffer physical injury
following other crimes e.g. after breaches of the factories legislation or as a result of driving offences. The crimnal is not permitted to gain from any payment therefore claims
in acases of domestic violence will be countenanced only if the parties are now livibng apart and look unlikely to co-habit in the future.
_______________________________________________________________________
4.4 COMPENSATION SCHEMES AROUND THE GLOBE______________________
Almost all countries have accepted this demand and introduced victim compensation schemes. New Zealand introduced it in 1963, Great Britain in 1964 and Australia in
1967. In America, 28 States (including New york and California) have introduced these schemes.
The compensation scheme in England is that A VICTIM IS APID compensation in accidents casesif he is injured for three weeks loss of pay. The award is sanctioned by the
compensation board when the victim submits an application to it.

In Newealand, compensation is apid in rape, kidnapping and murder offences out of the fine leived on the accused persons.Compensation thus does not cover crimes against
property.Special compensation Tribunals have been created for this purpose. The victims are expected to lodge complaints with the police and submit themselves to medical
check-up, if necessary. No compensation is paid where the victim shares th eresponsibility of the offences.

Victim compensation shemes have also been introduced in countries like Canada, franmce, Norway, Sweden, Italy, denmark, Belgium, japan, Ntheerlands, Turkey, west g
Germany, Yugoslavia, HongKong and Singapore. However, these countries do not pay compensation for all types of crime. Compensation is selective. The guidelines
generally followed are
 a. Compensation is payable to persons for injury resulting from crime.
b. Crimes against property is not compensable.
c. Victims of inter-familial crimes are not compensable.
d. Victims who initiate or provoke the criminal assaults resulting in victimization are precluded
e. Offences arising from gang warfare are not compensable
f. Trivial injuries are usually ignored, say a loss of less than two or three week’s earnings.

In India, the principle of compensation for victims of crime has been accepted in criminal procedure Code (CrPC) and 1958 Probation Act. The CrPC provides for
compensation out of fine levied on the accused.The award of compensation has to be a part of sentence and must be decided by the Couurts. Not only the victim but also
his/her spouse, parent and child are entitled to compensation.But in practice, the provision s (for compensation) have remained merely on paper because it is difficult to
recover from the offender.
S. nenugopal raised the question of compensation to victims in a seminar on ‘criminal Law and Contemporary Social changes’ held at Delhi from 8-10 may 1969 by the
Research division oft eh central Bureau of Investigation. Another seminar on ‘Compensation to victims of Road Accidents’ was organized in 1980 in New Delhi and various
issues like third – party claims, expeditious settlements, etc were discussed. However, since then no serious thought has been paid to this question either by te judiciary or
the criminologists.
A study in Poona city in 1960-61 by Pradhan (1965)showed that out of 510 cases of violence in one year (1960-61) prosecution took place only in 182 cases and in 13 casese
the aggrieved party was awarded compensation. In another study of victims of Fatal Motor Vehicle Accidents conducted by Khan and Krishna in Delhi in 1981, it was found
that only in 22 % cases, some ‘assistance’ was made available to the victims. In third –party insurance, only 20% ofteh bereaved families were compensated by the insurance
companies
In England, a white paper presented in the Parliament in 1959 suggested that ‘Soicety has concentrated so much on the rehabilitation ofthe offender that it has lost sight of
the equally important concern for the victim’s welfare i.e. the reformation policy is offender-oriented and not victim-oriented. It is necessary that victim’s loss and offender’s
ability to pay should be assessed.’
In America, Ralph Yarborough while introducing a private bill in the senate in 1963 held that ‘While Soicety is weeping over the criminal, it is showing no
such concern for the victim of his crime.Soicety is brutal towards the victims of crime and not against the criminals.’

Katzenbach Commission appointed in America in 1966 found legislators, law enforcement officers and the public in favour of compensation scheme.

Schafer’s world wide (29 countries) inquiry on victim compensation concerned the following questions
a. Whether th evictim or his dependents has any legal right to claim restitution or damages from the offender
b. If so, to what offences does this right apply
c. Whether damages are restricted to compensation for financial loss or any other non-material injury
d. The nature of jurisdiction
e. The manner of recovery

He found three systems existed in paying compensation to victims

a. Damage awarded in civil proceedings only.
b. Restitution awarded both in civil and in criminal proceedings
c. Compensation awarded through special procedures both in civil and criminal proceedings.
He, thus concluded that the general situation involves the victim of crime in a helpless position with regard to his claim for compensation. Stephen Schafer
studied existing compensation schemes in 29 Countries in 1958-59 and gave the following suggestions:

a. Compensation to victims of crime could be brought within the purview of criminal procedure and dealt with in the same criminal court which
deals with the offence.
b. Compensation may be claimed byt eh victim butif doesn’t , the court should deal with it as art of its fundamental duties.
c. If question of compensation leads to delay in the pronouncement of sentence, the court should apss a part sentence and may postpone its
decision in relation to compensation.
d. Compensation should be fixed with reference to offender’s economic and social position.
e. Where th eoffender is not in a position to compensate, the State must undetake it sresponsibilities.
f. The State should set up a compensation Fund with the aid of fine and other sources of vevenue.
 Issues for consideration in the context of India
If we take into consideration the magnitude of crimes in India for which compensation may be considered feasible , we find that (taking average of six
years from 1993 to 1998), every year about 2,94,360 cases of theft, 1,18101 cases of burglary, 23,190 cases of robbery, 8,488 cases of dacity, 21,248 cases of kidnapping,
38,024 cases of murder, 33,198 cases of cheating, 14,064 cases of rape and 15, 949 cases of breach of trust take place in our country. Can our stste afford to pay
compensation to about five lakh victims of only nine offences undr the IPC every year? How much amount would be involved? Since we donot have wage scheme in prisons,
how can offenders be compelled to pay compensation? This only shows that compensation scheme is not feasible in our country.A similar provision has already been made
in our Criminal procedure Code, Probation of Offenders Act,1958 and in some other laws.the idea of extensive application of the scheme of government commendation to
victimsthus does not appear to be economically practicable in our country.In fact, no Government can afford the cost of victim compensation which may run into billions of
rupees a year and also no government can lay claim to finding fool-proof mtheods for detecting fraudulent claims.There is also the fear that such programmes would result
in the creation of another bureaucractic paper mill and that compensation would dampen the victim’s desire to testify against criminals, increasing crime rates.Of course,
there are scholars who have answers to these criticisms.they maintain that restrictions on eligibility will control expenditure. Also there is no evidence that compensation
affects the crime rate. The possibility of fraud is minimal.Even in accidents cases which permit compensation according to the existing laws, the rate of compensation are
very low which do not cover even the medical expenses.the court procedures are so complicated that people, even if aware of the existence of the compensation scheme,
hesitate to take legal action against the offenders. It is therefore high time that a debate on the various aspects of victim-compensation in the country is started to protect
victim’s interests.

The scheme is therefore limited in the help it offers , the people who qualify and the way in which they qualify . None the less it is a recognition of the
suffering of the victim.One of the largest problem arises not out ofteh scheme itself but rather out of public ignorance of its existence.Shapland. willmore and Duff (1985)
found that most people who miss out on possible claims do so because they do not know that they can apply. There is no automatic mechanism in the criminal Justice system
to inform them of the possibility of the compensation even if they would have a good case.This could be held as a further indication of the low ststus of victim and their
problems in the criminal justice system.

Indian Legal Frame Work

In India compensation to victim of crime are of two types
a. Compensation from State, which is out come of Judicial imposition or sometimes, ex-gratia under Constitution oF iNida.
b. Comepnsation from an offender which is outcome either as a part of fine or allocation of specific sum to Victim Under Cr.Pc or Constitution Of
India.

a. The compensation has to come out of the amount of Fine . hence the sentence must be proportionate to the nature of the offence and the
sentence including the sentence of fine must be unduly excessive.
b. 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 should be determined.In directing compensation . the objective 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.
c. The court should also take into account the nature of the crime, the injurysuffered, 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.
d. The payment by way of compensation should be reasonable ehich depends upon the facts and circumstance of the each case. 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.
e. Reasonable period for payment of compensation, if necessary by instalment, may also be given

can be trace through the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Probation 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 . SubSection (1) empowers the courts to
appropriate the whole or any portion of the fine recovered for the purpose mentioned in the clauses to the subsection, 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-scetion (3) empowers the court, in its discretion, to order the accuse to apy
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 Offender Act vide its section 5 empowers the trial court to order for compensation.The power in case of this Act vests only with the trial Court. Section 431 and
421 of Cr.P.C. reads 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 court to recover any money (other than fine) payable by virtue of any order
made under as if it were fine if mtheod 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, wgich is to be given
either by the State or accuse.

The Directive principles contained under Article 38 (1) of the Constitution of Inida is to set up Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Compensation for victims shall be
awarded by the court on conviction of the offender and by the Criminnal Injuries Compensation Board whether or not a conviction has taken place. The Board will take into
account pain, suffering and shock as wellas loss of earnings.

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 oractice the said provisiob 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 these are cases in which the harm inflicted on the Victim would have been far less serious. Thus restorative and reparative theories are not
translated into real benefits to the victims.

Suggestions of Dr. Stephen regarding compensation of victimDr. Stephen gave the following suggestions after studying the compensation plan of 29 nations which are as
follows.
a. the compensation to be given to the Victim should be under the Courts and the decision for the cfompensation should also be done by the same court
who in giving punishment to the criminal.
b. If court tghinks that the decision fot the compensation requires time then the decision for the punishment for the criminal should be given without any
delay so that the crimnal can get punishment and the victim can get justice.
c. The claim for the compnsation shpuld be made by the victim if due to ignorancet the victim do not demands then it is the duty of the court to intiate so
as give compensation to the victim.
d. If the criminal is not in a capacity to give the compensation then State should have ‘ compensation fund’ in which the fine collected by the criminal along
with monetary contribution from the State is deposited.
Welfare Of Victim – the two main aspects of victimology is to study the role of victim in crime and the other aspect is related with the welfare of the victim
which is prenented below

4. in present context the State owns the responsibility to compensate the victim as the process of punishment is Govemntal.
5. the compensation to be given to the victim started in 1964 in England and Newzealand. Today almost most of the nation has the provision of
compensation for the victim..In India the compensation system started with Centrral Probation Act and Penal Coe in 1958. In India the compensation system is very feeble
as compared to nations.
6. Compensation is not given only to the victim but can also be given to his wife and his children.

Support and services for Victims

Victims have to compete with all other disadvantaged or unfortunate groups for the aid that may require. Therefore groups working for the victims must
both State their case and point out why their particular demands should be met. The plight of victims received recognition from both the Council Europe (in its 1983
convention and its 1985 guidelines) and t eh United nations (in their 1985 Declaration). Both International bodies included similar llists of victims neede the need to be
trearted with respect and dignity to be allowed access to the mechanism of justice and to legal processess which will provide them with redress for the harm done, offenders
should make restitution for the harm done to victims, their families or dependents and such restitution should be possible as a sentencing option in the criminal cases,
information for victims concerning the progress of the case allowing the views of the victim to be considered their personal interests are affected (as long as the accused is
not prejudiced) assisting victims through the legal process , use the informal dispute resolution such as medicine where appropriate , and material , medical , psychological
and social assistance for victims through governmental and community –based means (these are taken from the UN document). In 1990 in the United Kingdom the Victims
charter was published which largely set out in general terms the existing arrangement for victims.It includes items under most of the heads covered by the international
documents, but interestring ly it omits any mention of informal dispute resolution. The charters main limiting factor is that there is no means of enforcement so that it does
not give victims any rights , but it dioes represent an official recognition of the interestrs of victims and provides victims organizations with a powerful tool to lobby
parliament. Its strength lies in the provision of welfare based su[pport rather than rights in the criminal justice system. This perpetuates the way in which the needs of
victims were anyway being addressed in Britain , by twi very different approaches first , opfficially through the criminal justice system and secondly unofficalily through a
largely voluntary network of support schemes , most notably the VSS. In both approaches the victim is generally provided with opportunities rather than rights.
Even in the U.N. Declaration on Basic principles of Justice for victims of crime and Abuse of Power 1985 hint has been outlined for helping nad
sagfeguarding victims rights and to give justice and compensation to the victim. (resolution 40/45). The text is as follows.

Access to Justice and Fair Treatment

1. Victims should be treated as compassion and respect for their dignity. They are entitled to access to the mechanisms of Justice and to prompt
redress as provided for by national legislation for the harm that they have suffered.
2. Judicial and administrative mechanism should be established and strengthened where necessary to enable victim to obtain redress through
formal or informal procedures that are expeditious, fair inexpensive and accessible. Victims should be informed of their rights in seeking redress through such mechanisms.
3. The responsiveness of judicial and administrative processes to the needs of victims should be facilitated by
a. Informing victims of their role and the scope, timming and progress of the proceedings and of the disposition of their cases,
especially where serious crimes are involved and where they have requested such information.
b. Allowing the views and concerns of victims to be presented and considered at appropriate stages of the proceedings where their
personal interests are affected, without prejudice to be accused and consistent with the relevant national criminal justice system.
c. Providing proper assistance to victims throughout the legal process.
d. Taking measures to minimize inconvenience to victims, protect their privacy, when necessary and ensure their safety as well as that
of their families and witnesses on their behalf from intimidation and retaliation.
e. Avoiding unnecessary delay in the disposition of cases and the execution of orders granting awards to victims.
4. Informal mechanism for the resolution of disputes including mediation, arbitration and customary justice or indigenous practices should be
utilized where appropriate to facilitate conciliation and redress for victims.
Restitution 8. Offenders or third parties responsible for their behaviour should where appropriate make fair restitution to victims, their families or
dependents. Such restitutions should include the return of property or payment for the harm or loss suffered, reimbursement of expenses incurred as a result of the
victimization, the provision of services and the restoration of rights.
9. Governments should review their practices, regulations and laws to consider restitution as an available sentencing option in criminal cases, in
addition to other criminal sanctions.
10. In cases of substantial harm to the environment, restitution if offered should include as far as possible, restoration of the environment,
reconstruction of the infrastructure, replacement of community facilities and reimbursement of the expenses of relocation whenever such harm results in the dislocation of a
community.
11. Where public officials or other agents acting in an official or quasi-official capacity have violated national criminal laws the victims should
receive restitution from the State whose officials or agents were responsible for the harm inflicted. In cases where the Government under whose authority the victimization
act or omission occurred is no longer in existence, the State or Government successor in title should provide restitution to the victims.

Compensation 12. When compensation is not fully available from the offender or other sources. State should endeavor to provide financial compensation to
a. Victims who have sustained significantly bodily injury or impairment of physical or mental health as a result of serious crimes and
b. The family in particular dependents of person who have died or become physically or mentally incapacitated as a result of such
victimization.

12. The establishment, strengthening and expansion of national funds for compensation to victim should be encouraged. Where appropriate, either
funds may also be established for this purpose, including in those cases where the States of which the victim is a national is not in a position to compensate the victim for the
harm.

Assistance 14. Victims should receive the necessary material. Medical, psychological and social assistance through Governmental, Voluntary, community-
based and indigenous means.

15. Victims should be informed of the availability of health and social services and other relevant assistance and be readily afforded access to them.
 16. Police, justice, health, social service and other personnel concerned should receive training to sensitize them to the needed of Victims and guidelines to
ensure proper and prompt aid.

17. In providing services and assistance to victims, attention should be given to those who have special needs because of the nature of the harm inflicted or
because of the factor such as those mentioned in paragraph 3 above.

19. State should consider incorporating into the national law norms prescribing abuses of power and providing remedies to victims of such abuses. In
particular, such remedies should include restitution and or compensation and necessary material, medical, psychological and social assistance and support.
20. State should consider negotiating multilateral international treaties relating to victims as defined in paragraph 18.
21. State should periodically review existing legislation and practices to ensure their responsiveness to changing circumstances, should enact and enforce,
if necessary, legislation proscribing acts that constitute serious abuses of political or economic power as well as promoting policies and mechanisms for the prevention of
such acts and should develop and make readily available appropriate rights and remedies for victims of such acts.
Chapter 1V: Judicial Trend in Compensatory Jurisprudence Discernible through the Interpretation of the general and the Special Law
While the constituional provisions take care of protection of Victim’s rights and payment of Compensation to the victims of abuse of power by the State, in
appropriate cases, in case of private offences, the victim’s chances of getting compensation are rather limited and depends much upon the courts attitude from case to case.
The criminal procedure code reflects the general law concerning compensation to the victims of the crime to some extent. The relevant Provisions of the code are considered
below.
Section 357of the code of criminal procedure , 1973 is the main provision dealing the compensation to crime Victims. Section 545 of the old criminal
procedure code dealt with the same subject matter though it was somewhat narrower in scope. Section 357 (1) lays down inter alia :
Wheneverunder any law in force for the time being a criminal court imposes a fine or a sentence of which fine forms a aprt, the court may , when passing
judgement, order the whole or any part ofthe fine recovered to be applied:
a. In defrying expenses properly incurred in the prosecution.
b. In the payment to any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused by the offence when compensation is in the opinion of the court,
recoverable by such person in a civil court.]
c. When any person is convicted of any offence for having caused the deatrhs of another person of having abetted the commission of such an
offence in paying compensation to persons who are under the Fatal Accidents Act,1855, entitled to recover damages from the person sentenced for the loss resulting to them
from such death.
Sub-Section (3) of Section 357 was added, as recommemded by the Law Commission in its 41 st report, in the new criminal Procedure Code of 1973 and it
provides:
Wwhen court imposes a sentence of which fine does not form a aprt, the court may, when passing judgement , order the accused person to pay, by way of
compensation such amount as may be specified in the order, to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused person has been
sentenced.
The court has thus, a very limited discretion under Section 357 (1): it can award compensation only out of the fine, if imposed on the offender. The Courts
have, however, much more deiscretion under sub –section (3) of the Section 357, though onl if the fine does not form a part of the sentence. Theoreticallty, the power of the
court is unlimited, though practical consideration would prevail. A Magistrate can order for higher compensation than the amount of fine he can impose.

It is interesting to note that the courts have generally been averse to the imposition of fine along with a severe or even substantial punishment by way of
imprisonment. In Mohammed Sah and Other V. Emperor the offender was convicted under Sections 32, 148 and 149 of the Indian penal code. He was awarede one year
imprisonment ans a fine of Rs.500, out of which Rs. 400 were awarded to the heirs of the victim.the Lahore High Court held imprisonment to be substantial and therefore ,
fine to be unwarranted. The Court further held that compensation in any case would not have been payable to the heirs in view of the blame –worthiness on the part of the
deceasedf. He was himself the aggressor and had encroached upon the land of the offenders.
In another instance concerning compensation the Supreme Court has expressed its disapproval of combining the punishment of fine with the death
sentence and evn with life imprisonment. In the instant case, the High Court had reduced the punishment of death sentence to life imprisonment awarded by the trial court
and imposed a fine of rs. 20,000 on the offender payable to the heirs of the deceased. The Supreme court reduced the fine and compensation to Rs.3,000.
The judicial attitude is however, reflected somewhat differently in Guruswami V. State of Tamil Nadu where it was held that in case of murder it is only fair
that proper compensation should be provided for the dependents of the deceased. It was a case where the appelent had murdered his father and brother as a result of some
family feud and was sentenced to death.On appeal, the Supreme Court reduced the punishment tolife imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000 on the offender to be
paid to the heirs of the deceased.
 The Supreme Court has in recent years invoked the concept of victim restitution in appropriate cases. The court has realized the merit of compensating the
victim for the losses incurredby them. There is an emergent trend in penology to reassure the victim that he/she is not a forgotten species in the criminal Justice system, a
measure of responding appropriately to crime as well as reconciling the victims with the offender. On the other hand, the courts felt that the amount affixed should be
reasonable depending upon facts and circumstances of each case.there is a movement in the Courts to consider the time facotor, in enhancing the fine imposed . Also this is
to be done in such a fashion so as to bring maximum benefit to the victim, declared the payment underinsurance and that he/she should also be apid out of the fine as
compensation bears no kinship and cannot be equated to insurance payment.
The 1898 Code of Criminal Procedure was amended by joint select committee on the premise that the victim or his heirs should be compensated for the
loss incurred by the person responsible for it and it should extend even when death sentence is awarded or the person is entitled under Fatal Accidents Act to recover
damages.
In Palaniappa Gounder V. State of Tamil nadu where a death sentence was combined with a sentence of fine, the court remarked on this sparing use of
power and a need was felt that the imprisonment of the fine should be considered.The Court felt that in imposing a fine, it is necessary to consider the pecuniary
circumstances of the accused and also note the existing factors like the nature of the crime and justness of the claim. Thus in A.o.Dalal . stste oF Bombay, the apex courtheld
that when a substantial term of imprisonment is influicted, an excessive fine be imposed only in exceptional cases. N extreme penalty cases it is better to give damages at the
time of awarding judgement as it setles claims once and for all and does away with any futher claim.

In Sarwan Singh V. satae of Punjab it was said by the court that in awarding compensation, the ciourt should not just consider what compensation ought to
be awarded to the heirs of the deceased and then impose a fine which is higher than the compensation . the court laid down that the amount of fine should be determined on
the basis of various factors including nature of crime , number ofinjuries and the paying capacity of the offender. In this case the two appellants were fined Rs.3500 each
along with rigrous imprisonment of 5 years in view of sufficient funds being available wuth each.

In awarding compensation under the provision of criminal Procedure Code a major break through came in hari Singh V. Sikhbir Singh’s Case where the
apex Court recommended toall courts to exercise [power of awarding compensation liberaslly to ‘meet the ends of justice’. The award of compensation under Section 357
criminal procedure Code is interpreted to be an award in addition to other sentences and not ancilliary thereto. Thus, there are several instances, where the trend of the
court is indicated towards liberal approach in interpreting the provisions of criminal procedure code, in awarding compensation to the victims of crime.
The courts power in this area has been interpreted liberally , enabling it to exercise its power even at whim , sometimes. Thereby an allowanceis made as
to imposition of fine, and its extent is sometimes contrary to victim benefit.
Though the Courts have been active in awarding compensation involving the provisions of the criminal Procedure code, as a close study of the relevant
provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code indicates that there are ceratin inherent weakness in the provisions.

It is evident that only marginal action is possible under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to Compensate the victims of Crime. The various
constraints and limitations which often come in the way of courts, in awarding the compensation, may be summed up as follows:

1. much depends upon the paying capacity of the offender and in most cases, this acts as a bar against victim getting any compensation.
2. There is a general reluctance on the part ofteh criminal courts regading the use of criminal law process for compensationpurposes coupled with
the indifference and even ignorance on the part of lawyers and Clients and many opportunities are lost because of their fault.
3. the court are reluctant to impose fine along with substabtial imprisonment in serious offences and the scope of fine in any case if very limited in
terms of quantum in minor offences.
4. maximum fines have been laid down for various offences which were fixed long time ago and their monetary value must now be a very small
fraction of what it might have been at the time when these fines were introduced in the Penal Code.
5. Conviction is necessary for the payment of compensation . As is well known , conviction may not be possible in may cases irrespective of the
merit of the case.
Various judicial decision studied above clearly indicate that the judicial trends in compensating the victim is attaining new scales, with the courts with all
their powers and wisdom are doing justice to the victims of crime with their dynamic and active approach in interpreting the provisions of law.
As rightly observed by the supreme court Section 357(2) is an important provision but courts have seldom invoked it.Perhaps due to ignorance of the
object of it. It empowers the Courts to award compensation to victims while passing judgement of conviction. this power was intended to do somtheing to re-assure 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 as reconciling the victim with the offender.

Compensation under the Special Laws

 Besidesthe code of criminal Procedure, there are some other enactments which contains provisions for compensation to the crime victims.Thus Section 5
of the Probation of offenders Act authgorises a Cort releasing an offender on probation , to direct him to pay such compensation as the court thinks reasonable for loss or
injury caused to any person by the commission of the offence and such costs of the proceedings as the court thinks reasonable.probation system may be quite often the
condition for release of an offender on probation . Compensation by the prisoners out of their earnings dutring imprisonment has also been suggested as a good strategy , an
appropriate sanction in view of the fact that prisoners are given wages for the work done in prison .
Similarly , there are ceratin laws which provide for the imposition of pyunitive tax on the community as a whole in an area where roits occur or members
of an unlawful assembly commit some offences.Bombay Police Act,1951 is such an enactment . this remedy is perhaps the only effective remedy indicated in large scale
violence involving a large number of offenders and victime.This remedy is particularly useful in the context of the communal riots in the country since hardly any person is
convicted, not even prosecuted, regarding the participation in communal disturbancesdue to various political and legal constraints and expediency.Similar legislation is
needed for other parts of the country in view of the recurring nature of the communal riots.

Thus, there are also special laws which provide for compensation to te victims of crime in specific cases.however , the fact remains that, there is
psychological and socio-economic dimenmsions to the problem of victim compensation .while the laws act only as the means ,the ends can be achieved only through active
involvement of the social groups, the State agencies and above all. An active role of judiciary, as Ahmed Siddique remarks

‘ Compensation by the State to the Victimsof crime is the only proper remedy but it is very unlikely for such a scheme to materialize in India and other
developing and poor countries. The fact, however, remains that ineffective means of preventing and controlling the crime are the main factors leading to Victimisation.there
is a great need for the constant evaluation and improvement of law and enforcement procedures in order to reduce the crime victimization to the minimum
level.Governemnt and non-governemnt agencies have to perform effective roles in providing to victimjs both emergency and prolonged medical, psychiatric, psychological
and social services which are altogtheer lacking at present in the country.

Chapter VI
Judicial Trend in Compensatory Jurisprudence Discernible through the Interpretation of the Public Law
The Claim in public law for compensation for unconstitutional deprivation of fundamental rights to life and liberty, of the citizen the protection of which is
guaranteed under the constitution, is a claim based on strict liability and is in addition to the claim available in private law for damages for tortuous acts of the public
servants. Public Law proceedings serve a different purpose from that of te private lae proceedings. Award of Compensation for established infringement of the indefeasible
rights guaranteed under the consitution is a remedy available in Public law since the purpose of Public Law I s not only to civilise public power but also to assure the citizens
that they live under a legal system wherein their rights and interest shall be protected and preserved.
Grants of compensation in proceedings under Article 32 and 226 of the constitution of India for established violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed
under the constitution is an exercise of the Court under the public law Jurisdiction for penalizing the wrong doer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State
which failed in the discharge of its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen. When the constitutional rights are invaded, the invasion is not washed
awaymerely by restoring of the Rights. In appropriate cases, the supreme Court has jurisdiction to award monetary compensation by way of exemplary cocts or therwise.
The persons who are unlawfully deprived of their personal liberty by the official of the State are legally entitled to claim compensation /damages from the State are legally
entitled to claim compensation /damages from the State for the harm done to them.
The active role played by the Judiciary in enforcing the fundamental Rights ofet Citizen has not only certainly brought to light the lawlessness of the
executive and administration and checked it to some extent, but also contributed to development relating to victim rehabilitation by way of award of compensation in
appropriate cases.

In the light of the cases of compensation decided by the Supreme Court, it become pertinent to discuss the scope of Article 32 of the constitution.This
Article confers the power on the Supreme Court to issue directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and
certiorari, which ever may be appropriate for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by part III of the Constitution, the Supreme Court explained its
Jurisdication to Grant Compensation /Exemplary Cost under Article in Rudual Shah Case. It resolved that Article 32 cannot be used as a susstitute for the enforcement of
rights and obligations which can be enforced efficaciously through the ordinary process of Courts, Cvil and criminal. It Subjected itself to the important questions of passing
an order for payment of money if such an order is in the nature of compensation consequentiasl upon the deprivation of a fundamental right… It decided to pass an
appropriate order for payment of compensation in writ petition. In course of time, the Supreme Court has added a new dimension to the interpretation of article 32. Thus in
M.C. Mehra V. Union Of India spelling to the compass of Article 32 the Supreme Court held that this article does not m,erely copnfer power on it to issue writs and directions
but is also wempowerrs it to forge new remedies and fashion Strategies.In this case a writ petition by the of public Interest Litigation Article Supreme Court ,interalia, for
determinig the liability for larger eneterprises engaged in manufacture and sale of hazardous products, and the basis of liability for fixing damages.The court observed that
its power under Article 32 is ‘not only injunctive in ambit that it , preventing the infringement of a fundamental right, but it is also remedial in scope and provides reliefs
against a breach of fundamental right already commited. It has the power to award compensation in appropriate cases.it means compensation cannot be awarede in all
cases. It has to be awarded where the infringement is gross and its magnitude is such as to shock the conscience of the court.

Today it has become almost a common practise to knock the doors of the courts either under Article 226 or under Article 32 of the Constitution on the
ground of illegal arrests or detentions.the courts , being moved by such illegal arrest, detention torture and other form of injuries caused to the members of the public by the
agencies of State, in juxtaposition to the constitutional guarantees enshined under Articles 21 and 22 as also the procedural formalities envisaged in the code of criminal
procedure,1973 left the courts with no option bu t to invoke their prerogative powers under Artcle 226 or 32 as the case may be, so as to ensure due and possible justice to
te victims of police atrocitiesor tortures not only by awarding reasonable compensation , but also directing the State to initiate appropriate action on the erring police
officials.While doing so the Courts did not accept the defence of Soverign immunity to the inhuman acts of the police and made the State liable vicariously for the acts of its
servants.
Thus, the State has a legal duty of not only protecting the rights of the citizens, but also a social duty to compensate for illegal arrest or torture.the
compensation is seen as a tangible expression of State’s sympathy and concern for those who though no fault of their own suffer unjustifiable invasion on their personal
integrity.
In the nineties however, the apex court has taken or treated on a new dimension in the compensatory jurisprudence which has opened a new horizon in victimology which
may soon lead to certain normative formulation from the legislative wisdom on ths matter. In 1993, the Supreme Court is not helpless and the wide powers given to it by
Article 32 opined that the Supreme Court is not helpless and the wide powers given to it by Article 32 which itself is a fundamental right imposes a constitutional obligation
on it to forge new tools, which may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental right guarantedd in the Constitution, which enables the award of
monetary compensation in appropriate cases, where that is the only mode of redress available.
Chapter V
Judicial decisions Concerning Payment of Compensation

Since 1980’s the Supreme Court na dteh High Courts have made a rich contribution to progressive development of the Law concerning payment of
compensation to the victims of abuse of power by the State. A close study of some of the important decisions of the Courts is necessary to eswtabl;ish the propositin that
the judiciary is not lagging behind in its challenges role of protecting the citizen right and also providing them appropriate remedies , in the fast changing , socio-politico and
economic scenario of the State which is playimnmg a dominant role in several spheres of the citizen’s life.

A. Cases where the compensation was awarded

Recognizing the importance being given to the concept of compensation to victims, the Supreme Court has granted Compensation / exemplary costs to
tehose persons whose right was violated by the State and its administration , so as to make the right guaranteed under the Constitution more effective . the Supreme Court
while invoking Article 32 of the Constitution has granted two types of Monetary reliefs namely ‘compensation and exemplary Costs’. Though the idea of Compensation to the
victims is implicit in both the concepts yet exemplary costs as a measure of punishment to the State and at the same time a measure of damages toothe victim for the wrong
done to him by the State.
In 1983 , the Supreme Court of India declared in a seminal ruling in Rudul Sah
v. State of Bihar that it could award in appropriate cases, monrtaey compensation, wher there has been a violation of the guarantee of life and personal
liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution by he State. IN this case the petitioner was illegally detained in the prison for more than 14 years even after his aquittal. A
writ of Hebeas Corpus was filed on behalf of te petitioner and compensation was paid for illegal detention.The Supreme Court ordered the State to pay the petitioner a
further sun of Rs. 30,000/- as an interim measure in addition to the sum of Rs, 5000 already paid by it. It was further held that the order of compensation was in the nature
of a pallitive and it did not preclude the petitioner from bringing a suit to recover appropriate damages from the satae and its erring officials. This pronouncement was based
on the reasoning that the article would be denuded of its significant content if the power of the court was limited to passing orders for releasr from illegal detention or other
orders of a declatory kind. Therefore , an effective way to ensure that the violation of the right could be reasonably prevented and due compliance with the constitutional
mandate could be assured was to mullet its violater, the State with the payment of monetary compensation . this rulling was truly pathbreaking in several ways.First, it was
the logical sequel of the Human Rights Litigation in the Supreme Court in which ‘actvist’ judged ushered in new vistas in the landscape of individual rights and personal
liberty by laying down new jurisprudence which considerably embellished the express human rights guaranteed in the Constitution of these express rights. Secomd, it made
clear in no uncertain terms that lawmlessness and violation of human rights on the part of the State would not be Countenanced.Third, it improved the capacity and the
effectiveness of the Superior Court of the country in redressing violations of constitutionaqlly guaranteed fundamental and human rights.
Thus, in this historic case the court has accepted compensation as one of the reliefs which the court may grant under Article 32 for the effective
enforcement of the fundamental rights. The compensation according to the ruling of the Supreme Court is to be awarded by the Court only in cases where the facts are
revolting, outrageous and unusual indicating clear callousness on the part of te authorities.
 Just tweleve days after Rudal Sah the Supreme Court awarded Rs.15,000 as compensation to an under-trial who was detained in the lunatic asylum for six
years after he had been cerified as fit discharge.In yet another case the Government had disregarded for a long period of twelve years the mandamus issued by the Court to
pay pension to a retired civil servant. Being in a helpless situation the Court noted the intentional and deliberate harassment of the petitioner on the hands of Officers of the
State administration and awarded him exemplary costs amounting to Rs. 25,000 and the arrears of the pension with interest at the rate of 6%.

In Sebastian M. Homgray V. Union of India a writ of habeas corpus was issued to the Governemnt of Inida requiring to produce two missing persons alleged
to hav e been illegally kept in army custody. There was sufficient eveidence that they were last seen in the custody of army and were not released. The Government failed to
produce them before the Court and also expressed its inability to do so. N fact the two persons had met an unnatural death. The Court found that There was a willful
disobedience of the Writ of the Court by authorities by Presenting misleading facts. The Court sonsidered the Torture, the agony and mental oppression undergone by the wives of
the person directed to be produced. The Court , instead of Imposing a fine on the Governement for civil contempt of the Court awarded exemplary cocts to the tune of rupees
one lakh each to the two wives of tehmissing persons.
There have been many occasions where the liberty has been used as a license to anarchy and the governments lawlessness. Bhim Singh v.State of jammu
and Kashmir is such another example of the Governnment’s, Highhandedness.here the Victim was detained by the sate Administration solely with te intention to prevent him
from attending the session of the House.’the petitioner being a member of the Legislative Assembly was detained by the Police when he was on his way to attend te session
of the Legislative Assembly.
He was notproduced before the Magistrate within the requisite period. On the petition by his wife under Artcile 32, te Supreme Court depreciated the role
of Police and Commented against the magistrate and Sub-Judge who acted in a very causal way. Th ecourt not punitive and awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000
for his illegal detention.the Court observed:
‘When a person comes to us with the complaint that he was arrested and imprisoned with mischievous or malicious intent and that his constitutional and
legal rights are invaded the mischief or malice and the invasion may not be washed away or wished away by his being set free. In appropriate cases we have the hurisdiction
to compensate the victim by awarding suitable monetary compensation.

The decision in Rudal sah was further reterated in two other cases all of which togtheer formed a trilogy in which the Court granted compensation to
citizens whose rights had been violated by the State. The Supreme Court in A.S. Mittal v. satae of u.p. broadened the scope of Article 32 and granted compensation to the
trune of rs. 5000 on humanitarian consideration.In this case an eye camp was conductetd as apart of social services to the residents of the Town at Khurja in uttar Pardesh.
The whole programme at Khurja, however laudable the intentions with which it might have been launched, proved a disastrous medical misadventure for the patients. The
operated eyes of the patients were irreversibly damaged, owing toa postoperative infection of the intra-occular cavities of the operative eyesr…. The matter was brought
before the court in the form of a public interest Litigation.under article 32. the State Government provided a sum of Rs. 5000 to each of tehVictims by way of interim relief.
The court could not be satisfied on this sum of money granted by the State to the victim and resolved that:
‘…. We think that on humanitarian consideration the victims should be afforded some monetary relief by the sate Government.We direct that in addition to
the sum of rs. 5000 already paid by way of interim relief, the State Government shall pay a sum of Rs.12,500 to each of the Victim . the Victims entitled to receive the
additional payments shallbe the same as those who ahd the benefits of the interim relief of Rs.5000.’

the Court further directed the State of U.P. to pay the costs which has been quantified at Rs. 5000 to the petitioner. With these rulings the remedy of
compensation for redressing the violation of fundamental rights was firmly established and et hcourts have continued dispensing compensation in amy cases, where the
fundamental rights have been shown to have been infringed.. this trend has no doubt gone a long way for securing respect for human rights. And constitutional tort inIndia.
In other jurisdiction the judiciary has made similar innovations in order to protect the constitutional rights of their citizens.

Following Rudal Sah case the Supreme Court in People’s Union for Democaratic Rights v. State of Bihar awarded compensation to the victim of police firing
while disposing off a petition under Article 32 of theConstitution. The decision used the term “ Compensation’ to quantify the payments . in the same vien the court in 1989
awarded Rs. 50,000 as compensation to the family of one swarup who was beaten to death by police, when he along wit h other poor people demanded wages for the work
thay were forced to do in a police station by Police.
In cases involving abuse of power the important question often come for consideration for the judiciary is who should bear the burden of paying
compensation i.e. whether the Satte from its exchequer on the principle of vicarious liability or the concerned erring officials who is responsible for such abusive act, which
is definitely outside the purview of his official duties.though the courts have generally accept the need for fixing the responsibility on the erring official and hence lilability to
apy from his purse.Thre are instances also where the courts have directed the State to pay compensation , under the principle of vicarious liability.
In majority of the cases the Supreme Court had shown a greater degree of judicial consciousness towards protection of individual rights and liberties by
conmtaining administrative lawlessness and providing compensative justice to the victims. The Court seems to realize to a greater degree than before the need to
compensate monetarily the victims of atrocities committed by those invested with soverign power to pretect the victim instead of victimizing them.
 B. Award of Compensation in Rape cases
The judiciary has actively responded in may a cases of rape, where the women victims in fact , needs a real moral, theical, legal andf economic support to
face the trauma, in the prevailing social conditions.Some of tehimportant decisions ofteh court , where compensation was awarded to the victims of rape are as below.
In a dowry murder case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has awarded Rs.50,000 as compensation to the parents of victims. Again considetring the
plight of the victim woman, the apex court in a case for mud-slinging and character assassination of wife , convicted the husband under section 498-a of IPC and the husband
was fined Rs.1 lakh and rs.36,000 to be paid to victim woman as compensation.
In m.J. Cherian case the Supreme Court, directed the State of uttar paradesh toppay Rs. 2,50,000 as compensation to each of the victims of rape.
In a recent rape case of Nuns, both the rape victims were awarede rs.2.5 lakh as compensation and the other affected Nuns who were assaulted and
molested were also paid compensationof one lakh each.

In a recent case where a woman Hanuffa Khattoon , a Bangladeshi national was gang raped by some persons, including som erailway employees at the rail
yatri Niwas at Howrah Station on Feb.26,1998. Acting on Public interest Litigation petition filed by a woman lawyer, the Calcutta High Court had awarede rs.10 Lakhs as
compensation to the victim on grounds that the incident had taken place in a building belonging to the Railways.
The Supreme Court directed the railway Board to hand over the compensation amount payable to te victim, to the Bangladesh high Court within 3 months.
c. Compensation to Victims of crime and national Human Rights commission
the national Human Rights Commision , an agency of State and a Statutory body created under Act of parliament , namely the national Human Rights
Act,1993 has ever since its formation and funxctioning been actively engaged in the work of not only enquiring into the cases opf violation of human Rights and fundamental
freedoms, but also even awarding compensation to the victims of violation of Human rights.
Some of the important decisions of the National Human Rihts Commission of far reaching importance aare discussed below.
In a case from orissa the National Human Rights Commission has directed the satte to pay Rs.6,25,000 as compensation to 125 tribal families whose
children had died of malnutrition and malaria in Phulbani district in October,1994.
Again , at the instance of national Human Rights Commission , the Andhra pardesh Governemnt has enabled compensation to the victims of extremist
violence. Orders have been issued providing for payment of Rs. 50,000 to the legal heirs of person killed by naxalities Rs.20,000 to those permanently incapacitated and
Rs.10,000 to those seriously injured with effect from 1.4.1994.
In yet another case, the National Human Rights Commission has recommended the Tamil nadu Governemnt to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensdationto
the parents of a 15 years ol;d boy Raja alis Mrurugan who died in police custody, Hosur police station in 1995 in Dharampuri District.
Similarly in a case, the national human Rights Commission has recommended the Andhra Pradesh Governmant to a pay a sum of rs.45,000 towards
treatment of Kankati Sailu, who sustained serious injuries at the hands of naxalities in Karimnagar district in 1994.
In another case, the commission has recommended the Tamil nadu Government to pay a sum of rs.25,000 to the next of Kin of AnthonySwami who died in
police custody and has given necessary directions for recovering this amount from the delinquent police officials in1995.
In yet another case , upon the recommendation of the commission , the Bihar Government paid Rs.1,00,000 as compensation to Mrs.Ashma of Dhanpur,
Bihar whose husband was shot dead in the riots following demolition of Babri Masjid and also a substance allowance of Rs. 1,500 per month to the widow during her
lifetime.
In case involving the custodial death of one Mr. Nagaho Sema of Nagaland, while holding 9 wardens responsible for the act and recommending
prosecution , the commission has recommended the payment of Rs. 50,000 as compensation to te next of kin of the deceased.Further, the commission asked the State
government to recover this amount from the errant personnel so that the State ex-chequer might not be forced to bear this unnecessary burden.
In yet another case, upon the recommendation of the commission, the Kerela Government has sanctioned payment of Compensation of Rs. 10,000 each of
the seven boys who were stripped and forced to append two nights in the company of girls in the police up at Tirunelvelli in Wayanad District.Necessary action has also been
initiated by the State Government for recovering ,through departmental preceedings, the total compensation amount of Rs.70,000 from te delinquent Police officers, who
have been placed under suspension.
In a significant verdict, the national Human Rights Commission has directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to pay immediate interim relief of Rs. 10 Lakh
to a victim of police torture and bears all expenses for his treatment and rehabilitation.the constitution has also recommended disciplinary action against five officers
including the Asst. Superintendent of Police and te Superintendent of Police of Varanasi, responsible for the torture of rakesh Kumari Vij, rendering him incapable of leading
a normal life.

In another case, in 1995 the national Human Rights Commission has recommended the payment of interim Compensation of Rs.5 Lakh to the father of the
Victim in a case of custodial death of a youth in Balia in district of Uttar Pardesh as politically motivated one and an instance of police high handedness.
 tha national Human Rights Commission has directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay Rs.20,000 each to three women for causing unnecessary
‘harassment’ and the same to be recovered from the erring officials.

In yet another landmark decision, the national Human Rights Commission has ordered the Karnataka Governemnt to pay an interim relief of Rs. 2 lakhs to
the Kin of a victim who died in a police lock-up. The victim, Thimmaiah, had allegedly commited suicide using a nylon rope in a Kolar district Police Station. The National
Human Rights Commission said that the State Governemnt would be at liberty to recover the sum from the Policeman.

The cases narrated above are but only a few instances of the atrocities commited by the police as agents of the State and in which compensation was
awarded by the Courts through their activism in interpreting the provisions of the Constitution and other Statutes.
However , there are still several cases, where a citizen became victims of abuse of power but which fails to reach the courts, seeking redressal for the
reason that the prevailing socio-economic conditions and complexity of the law makes them often the helpless victims of the State excesses.

Cases where compensation was not awarded

It is pertinent to note that , there are also cases, in which the Apex Court refused to award compensation to the victims of State abuses, though the court
has emphasized the need for development of compensatory laws.Following are some of the instances where the courts were not inclined to award any compensation,
keeping in view the nature and circumstances of the case , before it.

It is interesting to observe that there are cases where the courts were somehow found to be reluctant to award compensation in cases involving abuse of
power , though the justice demands otherwise.A few of such notable instances are discussed below. In Khetri V. State of Bihar where the Police authorities had blinded
certain prisoners and the counsel for the blinded prisoners asserted a constitutional right to get compensation for the damages caused by police excesses. For the first time
an issue of constitutional importance was raised before the Supreme Court as to a person deprived of his right to life or personal liberty in violation of Article 21 by the
State.The question raised was whether the Court can grant monetary compensation to such person. The court imposed a liability upon the State to pay compensation to the
victim for violation of the personal liberty under Article 21. the court agreed that in the light of dynamic –constitutional jurisprudence such a claim of compensation could be
made.However, it is interesting to note that no compensation was paid to the victims in this case.
The issue of compensation to the victim of State excesses where the claim for compensation was rejected was again raised in Sant Bir v. State of Bihar
where the victim was a criminal lunatic.he had become perfectly sane and fit for discharge but remained under detention illegally for over 15 years. The court directed the
releasr of prisoner and remarked that it was a matter of shame for the society as well as the administration to detain a person for fifteen years without any justification. The
court appreciated the need to compensate the victims of lawless law enforcement but left the question again open. Thus , in both the above cases the apex court expressed
its concern about the grant of any compensation to the victims of State excesses but failed to actually garnt the same.
Similarly , in Sim Padma Dev and Other sv. Stste of Himachal Pradesh and others the petitioners was detained illegally and confined unlawfully by the
police authorities while abusing their powers.the High Court was satisfied regarding forgeries made in tehpolice zimnis (general diary), but took rather a lenient view, on the
plea that it was the first known lapse on the part of the respondent police officials and directed a departmental ijnquiry by the compentent disciplinary authority and only
Rs.500 as cost of the petition was awarded to both the petitioners jointly in the ratio of Rs. 300 and Rs.200.thus no compensation was awarded by the court for illegal
detention. It si rather disappointing that the High Court showed leniency to the offence of forgery indulged in by the police officials and did not award any compensation to
the victim of the criminal Law.

It is indeed distressing that even higher judiciary is not keen to provide compensation to the victims of crimes and is satisfied only to get the victims of the
crimes freed from the cluthes of the police and jail authorities.

Ina recent case, where the prosecutrix, a young girl of 16 years studying in class X, was abducted and gang raped under duress by some miscreants during
her matriculation examination and worst of all the lower court acquitted the accused person saying that there is no evidence and described the prosecutrix as a girl of loose
character, the judicial conscience of the Apex Court was schoked to notice that such inference was drawn from no evidence on record.The Apex Court held,

‘ we must remember that a rapist not only violates the Victim’s privacy and personal integrity, but inevitably causes serious psychological as well as the
physical harm in the process. rape’s not merely a physical assault – it is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. the courts therefore shoulder a great
responsibility while trying an accused on the charges of rape.

The Apex Court convicted the accused persons but did not allow compensation to the victim only because the women’s commission failed to draw up a
scheme for payment of compensation to pare victims. This is a step in retrograde which has blocked the advancement of compensatory justice.
 Agin the attitude of the Supreme Court towards the large number of poeople in jail witout for petty offences has been that of indifference to the aspects of
compensation.this is illustrated in the case of matthew Areparnitial and Others v. State of bihar and others. The Supreme Court confined itself to laying down the conditions
for release of such persons and did not give any direction for compensation to the victims of the criminal process. The Supreme Court did not bother to issue any direction
for disciplinary proceedings against the police and prosection for not getting the offenders dully tried by a Court of law.They could easily prescribe a time limit for the trial
of such cases.the Supreme Court contended itself in issuing directions for immediate release of the persons.

From a brief resume of the few cases described above on ecannnot escape the impression that he judiciary has persistently evaded to award any
compensation to the victims of the criminal process, for violating human rights,particularly the rights to personal liberty.therefore, the prosecution agency has also not
lagged behind as the lower judiciary has invariably condoned the indulgence of the prosecution in this regard. The Legislature by confining tehpower of compensation only
to the Magistrate hearing the case had left no scope for higher judiciary to intervene in the matter except under writ jurisdiction.
A review of the judicial trend concerning the payment of compensation to the victims of State lawlessness, by and large reveals that, the award of
compensation to the victims of abuse of power by the State is not a rule of exception but is a rule itself.the interpretation of Article 32 of the constitution enabling the Courts
to award the compensation to the victim in case of Satte lawlessness/highhandedness/excesses had given a new dimension to jurisprudence of victimology in India. For a
long time this proposition of giving compensation to the victims was never involved by the Supreme Court. In the light of the cases discussed above, it has been found atht
Court did not generalize the provision of granting compensation.It has granted compensation exemplary costs only in cases of extreme necessity, where the infringement is
gross and patent, incontrovertible and glaring.No general yard Stick to measure such hardships has been laid down.
It is pertinent to quote the British Home affairs Charter’s guiding principles published in February,1990, which lend support to the philosophy of
compensatory Jurisprudence.
The Public interest must come first, but the harm done to the victim is that usual cause of action and in considering the public interest no one should
overlook or disregard the interests and wishes of the victims.

By and large, the judicial trend in awarding compensation to victims of crime and abuse of power indicate a strong urge on the part of the judiciary to
award compensation to the victims of crime almost not as a rule of exception but as a rule itself.

CHAPTER XI
CASES
Judicial activisnm towards copompensation to victims of State excess
No State can develop properly until,lit aligns itself with the socio-economic evolution of the masses whopse destiny it is meant to guide and control .
judiciary being the custodian of the rights of the people must recognise the development of the nation and to apply the principles to the position to which the nation in its
progress assumes from time to time . 3 Article 21 of the constitution which deals with the life and personal liberty has been the subject matter of controversy before the
judiciary throughout its inception.the widest possible interpretation has been given to this precious fundamentals right sosas to provide right to effective justice.
Recognizing the importance being given to the concept of compensation to victims , the Supreme Court has granted compensation/Exemplary costs to those persons whose
right was violted by the State and its administration, so as to make the right to life and personal liberty more effective. The Supreme court while omvoking Article 32 of the
Constitution , has granted two types of monetary reliefs, namely ‘compensation ‘ and exemplary Costs’. Though the idea of compensation to the victims is implicit in both the
concepts yet exemplary costs are essentially in thenature of punitive damages.Exemplary costs serve as a measure of punishment to the satae and at the same time a
measure of damages to the victim for the wrong done to him by the State.
The issue compensation to the Victim of State was raised before Supreme court in Khetr Khetri V. State of Bihar (popularly known as Bhagalpur Blindings
case). Here the Police Utghorities had blinded Certain Prisoners and the Counsel for the Blinded Prisioners asserted a constitutional right to get compensation for the
damage caused by the police excesses. For the first time an important issue of constitutrional importance was involved before the Supreme Court as to if a person is deprived
of his right to life ot personal liberty in violation of Article 21 by the State , can the court grant monetary compensation to such person? The court imposed a liability upon
the State to pay compensation to the victim for his personal liberty under Article 21. The court agreed that in the light of dymnamic constitutional jurisprudence such a
claim of compensation could be made.

3
Drapkin . Israel and vaino, Emilio (eds) Victimology, Lexington , Mass: 1974). Carrington , Frank G. The
Victims (1975): pasternack, Stsfans, (eds) Violence and Victims (1975); vaino, Emilio G.ed. Victims and
Society, (1976); Fry, Margery, “ Justice for victims’, journal of Public Law, Vol 8 (1958), pp.191-94.
Newton , Anne, Aid to the Victim- Compenmsation and Restitution”, Crime and delinquency literature ,
Vol 8 (Sept. 1976), pp. 368 –90. Quinney Richard, “Who is the Victim,?” Criminology , Vol 10 (1972)
pp.314-23
 The issue of compensation to the victim of State was again raised in Sant Bir V. State of Bihar where the victim was a criminallunatic. He had become
perfectly sabe abd fit fir discharge but remained under detention illegally for 15 years. The court directed the release of the prisoner and remarked that it was a matter of
shame for the society as well as the administration to detain a person for over fiftenn years without any justification. The court appreciated the need to compensate the
victim of the lawless law enforcement but left the question again open . thus in both the cases the apex court expresses its concern about the grant of any compensation to
the victim of satae excesses but failed to actually grant the same.
The majo r break through in the field of victimology Jurisprudence came in Rudal Shah V. State Of Bihar, When the Supreme Court of India granted
monetary Compensation amounting to Rs. 35,000/- to an ordinary citizen against the lawless act of Bihar government which kept him under illegal detention for more than
14 years after his aqquital/ This is the first judicial concern to ‘ repair the damages’ done by the officers of the State to the victimized citizens.this concern has been
considered as a major breakthrough in the protection of human rights and the promotion of responsible Government. The apex Xourt for the first time deviated from the
traditional approach applying the law mechanically based on precedents and brought the law closer to life by reinforcing the legitimacy and credibility of the Court
particularly amongst the Weaker sections of the people. The writ petition revealed a sordid and disturbing stste of affairs. The Petitioners proceeded to the Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution and claimed ancilliary reliefs like rehabilitation, reimbursement of expenses which he might incur for medical treatment and compnsation for
illegal incarceration. The issue came before the court as to whether it could give some compensation or exemplary cost against the State under Article 32 for his wrongful
detention.he court expressed its feeling that it has no doubt that if the petitionar had filed a suit to recover that it has no doubt that if the petitionar had filed a suit to recover
damages for his illegal detention, a decree for damages would be passed in that suit. Under these circumsatances, the court felt that the refusal to pass an order of
compnsation in favour of the petitioner will be doing mere lipservice to his fundamental right to liberty which the State Government has so grossly violated.
Thus the Court accepted Compensation as one of the reliefs which the Court may grant under Article 32 for the effective enforcement of the fundamental
rights. The Compensation is to be awarded by the Court only in cases where the facts are revolting , outrageous and unusual indicating clear callousness on the part of the
authorities.
Just twelve days after Rudal Shah, the Supreme Court awartded Rs. 15,000/- as compensation to an undertrial who was detained in the lunatic asylum for
six years after he had been certified as fit for discharge. In another case the Governemnt had disregarded for along period of twelve years the mandamus issued by the court
to pay pension to a retired civil servant. Being in a helpless situationm the court noted the intentional and deliberate harassment of the petitioner on the hands of the
officers of the satae administration and awarded him exemplary costs amounting to Rs. 25,000 /- and the arrears of the person with interest at the rate of 6%.
In Sebastian M. Hongry V. Union of India a writ of habeas corpus was issued to the Governemnt of India requiring to produce two missing persons alleged
to have been illegally kept in armycustody. There was sufficient evidence that they were last seen in the custody of army and were not released. The government failed to
produce them before the court and also ecxpressed its inability to do so.in fact the two persons had met an unnatural death. The court found that there was a willful
disobedience of the writ of the court by authorities by presentinmg misleading facts.the court consider the torture, the agony and mental oppression under gone by the
wives of the persons directed to be produced. The court, instead of imposing a fine on the government for civil contemt of the court awarded an exemplary costs to the tune
of rupees one lakh each to the two wives of the missing persons.
There have been many occasions where the liberty has been used as a licence to anarchy and the government lawlessness. Bhim Singh v. Stste of Jammu
and Kashmir is such another example of the Governemnt highhandedness. Here the victim was detained by the State Admionistration solely with the intention to
preventhim from attending the session of the house.The petitioner being a member of the Legislature Assembly was detained by the police when he was on his way to attend
the session of the legislative Assembly.
He was not produced before the magistrate within the requisite period. On the petition filed by his wife under Article 32, the supreme Court deprecated the
role of police and commented against the magistrate and subjudges wjo acted in a very casual way. The court deviated from the rule that the writ of habeas corpus is a
remedial and not punitive and awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/- for his illegal detention.

The supreme Court in A.S. Mittal V. State of U.P. broadened the scope of Article 32 and granted compensation on humanitarian consideration.in this case an
Eys camp was conducted as a part of social service intended to extend facilities of expert ophthalmic surgical services to the residensts of th town at Khurja in Uttar Pradesh.
However, the whole programme at Khurja, laudable the intentions with which it night have been launched, proved a disastrous medical misadventure for the patients were
irreversibly damaged, owing to a post –operatuve infection of the Inttra Occular cavities of the operated eyes.despite antibiotic medication , both oral and local for infection ,
the operated eyes had been damaged completely . Similar mishap but on lesdser scale affecting 15 patients repeated itself at moradabad where also a similar camp was
organized by the same opthologist. It is undisputedthat this terrible mishap was due to acommon containment source.Report of the enquiry revealed that in all possibility , t
he source of the infection referred to as Ecoli infection of the intra –occular cavity, was the normal saline used on the eyes at the time of surgery. The matter was brought
before the court in the form of a Public Interest Litigation under Article 32. The State Governemnt provided a sum of Rs. 5000/- to each of the victims by way of interim
relief. The court could not br satisfied on this sum of money granted by the State to the victim and resolved that
 However we think that on humanitarian consideration , the victims should be afforded some monetary relief by the State Governemnt. We direct that in
addition to the sum of Rs. 5000/- already paid by way of interim relief, the State Government shall pay a further sum of Rs. 12,500 to each of the victims. The victims entitled
to receive the additional payment shall be tah same as those who had the benefit of the interim relief of Rs. 5000.
The Court further directed the State of U.P. to pay the cost which has been quantified at Rs.5000 to the petitioner. N another Writ petition under Article 32 of
the Constitution in Saheli, a women’s Resource Centre through Ms. Nalini Bahnot V. Commissioner Of Police, Delhi, the supreme Court awarded compensation amounting to
Rs. 75,00/- the mother of the victim for the death of a nine year old because of beating and assault by police officer. This is a case relating to the highhandedness of the Police
authorities, who along with the owner of a house, adopted unlawful mtheods for getting the eviction of the home from the tenets. Ms. Kamlesh Kumari, the tenant requested
to be given some time to vacate the house, as her children were studying in the schools. The S.H.O. of the area called kamlesh Kumari to the Police Station and threatened to
lock her up if she refused to vacate the room. Despite her various requests the sub-inspector of Police took her children away to the Police station and threatened not to
allow her to meet them. With great difficulty she got the children released with the help of her Lawyer. On the next day the owner of the house along with S.H.O. in civilian
clothes beat up Kamlesh Kumari, tore her clothe and molested her. Her nine years old son was also beaten and thrown on the floor. Kamlesh Kumari was dragged away to
the police Station and a criminal case was imposed upon her of trespass. She was sent to Tihar Jail and her lawyer got released. Kamlesh Kumari on her release came back
and found that her son Naresh was in a very bad condition. The children took shelter at a neighbour’s house and they got local doctors to look after Naresh who was later
admitted to the hospital on the advise of the doctors.Naresh died in hospital and an inquest was carried out.

The Supreme Court relied upon the earlier cases relating to the liability and directed the Delhi Administration to pay compensation to Kamlesh Kumari,
mother of the deceased, Naresh, a sum of Rs. 75,000/- within a period of four weeks from the date of judgement. The court further resolved that Delhi Administration may
take appropriate step for recovery of the amount paid as compensation or a part there of from the Officers who will be found responsible, if they are so advised.

The interpretation of Article 32 of the Constitution is to give compensation to the victim in case of lawlessness/ highhandedness/excess has given a new
dimension to jurisprudence of victimology in India. For a long time this proposition of giving compensation to the victims was never invoked by the Supreme Court. In the
light of the cases discussed above, it has been found that Court did not generalize the [provision of granting compensation . It has granted compensation/Exemplary costs
only in cases of extreme necessity, where the infringement is gross and patent, in controvertible and glaring. No general yard stick to measure such hardships has been laid
down.
In Murti devi V. State of Delhi an undertrial prisoner in jail due to the injury sustained by him by the jail authorities a petition was filed. In that
circumstance the Supreme Court held : ‘ Because of the gross negligence on the part of the jail authorities, R, an unbdertrial prisoner was subjected to serious injuries inside
the jail which ultimately caused his death. It has been ststed by the petitioner, M, the mother opf the said deceased that R. was the only bread earner in the family an on that
day she had become a helpless widow with three sons to be maintained. As it was the burden duty of the jail authorities to protect the life of an under trial prisoner lodged in
the jail and as in the instant case such authorities has failed to ensure safety and security to the said unfortunate accussed, the State is directed to pay a sum of rs. 2,50,000 to
the petitioner within a period of six weeks. Out of the said anmount rupees two lakhs should be kept in fixed deposit in the name of M in a nationalized Banks for aperiod of
five years so that she can maintain herself and members of the family , out of the interest accruing on the said fixed deposit. The balance sum of Rs. 50,000/- should be
handed over to M within the period of Six weeks against prper receipts. After the said period of five years the petitioners M or her legal heirs and successors as the case may
be will be free to utililse the said sum of rupees two lakhs according of their desires.
Recentaly in chairman , railway Board V. Chandrima Das the Supreme Court held that where gang rape was commited by railway employees in the building
of railways namely Yatri Niwas on a woman from BanglaDesh, the Central Govt. Would be Vicariously liable to [pay the compensation to the victim. It was not act
committed by railway employees in discharge of functions delegated to them as referable to soverign powers of Governemnt Rinnubg of railways is a commercial activity.
Establishing Yatri Niwas at various railway stations to provide lodging and boarding facilities to passengers on payment of charges is aprt of the commercial activity of the
Union of India and this activity cannot be equated with the exercise of Soverign Power. The employees of the Union of India who are deputed to run the Railwaya and to
amaneg the establishment, including the railway Station and Yatri Niwas are essential componenets of the Govt. Machinery which carries on the commercial activity,. If any
of such employees commits an act of tort, the union Government of which thay are the employers can subject to other legal requirements being satisfied be held vicariously
liable in damages to the person wronged by those employes . it was so when instant case was case under public law domain and not ina suit instituted under private Law
domain against who utilizing thjeir official position , got a room in the yatri Niwas booked in their own name where the act complained of was committed. I
It was further held that the theory of Soverign power which was propounded in Kasturilal case hasd uyielded to new theories and is no longer available in
a welfare State. It may be pointed out that functions of the Governemnt ina welfare are mainifold, all of which cannot be said to be the activities relating to exercise of
Soverign Powers. The functions of the State not only relate to the defence of the country or the administration of the justice, but they extend to may other spheres as for
example education, commercial, social, ecomonic, political and even material. These activities cannot be said to be related to soverign power.
1.