Asian Criminology and Criminal Justice Research

Sudhir Krishnaswamy
Renuka Sane
Ajay Shah
Varsha Aithala Fditors

Crime
Victimisation
in India
Springer Series on Asian Criminology
and Criminal Justice Research
Series Editor
Jianhong Liu, Faculty of Social Sciences & Humanities
University of Macau Department of Sociology
Taipa, Macao, Macao
The series publishes both theoretical and empirical work along several themes in
Asian Criminology, with a focus on research-level monographs and edited volumes.
It aims to cover 4 main themes: the elaborations and adaptations of research models
and established theories (established mainly by Western scholarship) to Asian
contexts; an introduction of innovative concepts, theories and policies originating in
Asian societies to Western audiences; and in-depth studies of particular Asian
countries, as they reflect local traditions and cultures one hand, and a general
understanding of criminal behavior or criminal justice, on the other. It will feature
authors from any country of origin doing research about or pertaining to Asian
countries.
The series encourages submissions of both quantitative and qualitative research
approaches, as well as mixed methods and comparative approaches, with a focus on
studies using rigorous methods and presenting new research results. It will be of
interest to researchers in criminology and criminal justice, as well as related fields
such as sociology, demography and international studies.
 Sudhir Krishnaswamy * Renuka Sane
Ajay Shah ¢ Varsha Aithala
Editors

_ Crime Victimisation in India

> NT Se
eee

apap. cces ie
rio s a 7 : ; s ’

9
=4 ;
Pies R ak j MGR
: . aes ,
AS CR
Hunt WE
OS
C ol RTeetPo, , '

sane
ot ted

:
"oS 1 Pat " Te! ~ _. i j > he sg —
= ‘ , ,- ‘|
ce a , i o~24
— ke ; ’ a is Cf er At 2 .
: bs 7 oe i +f \ : ‘ r= 5,
; > rs
7. -
a }
cy : ye ’ ae ’ Aahae “a
Editors
Sudhir Krishnaswamy Renuka Sane
National Law School of India University NIPFP and xKDR Forum and Jindal
Bengaluru, Karnataka, India Global University
Sonipat, Haryana, India
Ajay Shah
NIPFP and xKDR Forum Varsha Aithala
Mumbai, Maharashtra, India National Law School of India University
Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Purchased:

' 033979
“Narayan Rao Melgini
National Law Library”

ISSN 2522-5545 ISSN 2522-5553 (electronic)

Springer Series on Asian Criminology and Criminal Justice Research
ISBN 978-3-031-12250-7 ISBN 978-3-031-12251-4 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03 1-12251-4

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2022
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Contents

1 Crime Victimisation Surveys in Indian Criminal Justice System

ie, Conkle. Mea es ee. eS. OR ee |
Renuka Sane and Ajay Shah
2 Crime Victimization and Safety Perception Survey: Delhi
al Ss ck op oy sh,«4,ik Bs pipe 11
Devyani Srivastava and Devika Prasad
3 Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime
rs, Fo Fe OPUS ON OS, Pee be 61
Neha Sinha and Avanti Durani
4 Status of Policing in India Reports: 2018 and 2019............... 149
Radhika Jha and Vipul Mudgal
5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019:
A Primer for a National Crime Victim Survey................... 201
Sudhir Krishnaswamy and Varsha Aithala
 { Se i< < b-ar - A)

| gigtue ty <i Spear? «rol baw tiie 2art 2 «

i a | oe | . tedbtreaA tere
ena o ' tit see Reet one
r -
I Ba ASS) a ee _
BS anh sertyad ,
;
| si
 About the Editors

Sudhir Krishnaswamy is Vice-Chancellor, Director of online and hybrid pro-

grams, and Professor of Law at the National Law School of India University,
Bengaluru. He teaches political philosophy and politics in India, research methodol-
ogy, constitutional law, law and justice, and legal system reform. His main areas of
interest are constitutional law, legal system reform, legal theory, intellectual prop-
erty law, and administrative law. He has written on a wide range of topics, including
Indian constitutional law, intellectual property law, and judicial corruption.
He is also the co-founder and trustee of the Centre for Law and Policy Research.
Previously, he was the Director of the School of Policy and Governance, and
Professor of Law and Politics at Azim Premji University, Bengaluru. He was also
the Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Visiting Professor of Indian Constitutional Law at Columbia
Law School. He has been a teaching fellow in law at Pembroke College at Oxford
University, an Assistant Professor at the National Law School of India University,
and Professor at the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences. He has
taught law at universities in Australia, the UK, and the USA.
A Rhodes Scholar and graduate of the University of Oxford, he has earlier
worked with the Prime Minister’s Committee on Infrastructure, Planning
Commission, and the Kasturi Rangan Expert Committee on Bangalore Governance.
He is also the only Indian member of Facebook’s social media oversight board.
He has a Doctor of Philosophy in Law and a Bachelor of Civil Laws degree from
the University of Oxford and a Bachelor of Arts and Law (Honors) degree from the
National Law School of India University, Bengaluru.

Renuka Sane is Associate Professor at the National Institute of Public Finance and
Policy. Her research interests lie in household finance, credit and bankruptcy, pen-
sions, and the regulatory state.
She was a member of the research team of the Bankruptcy Legislative Reforms
Commission on individual insolvency. She is also a member of the Pension Advisory
Committee of the Pension Fund Regulatory Development Authority, and a member
of the working group on personal insolvency at the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Board of India.

Vii
Vill About the Editors

She has a PhD in Economics from the University of New South Wales and holds
an MA in Economics from Mumbai University.

Ajay Shah studied at IIT, Bombay and USC, Los Angeles. He has held positions
at the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIEB), Indira Gandhi Institute for
Development Research (IGIDR), Department of Economic Affairs at the Ministry
of Finance, and National Institute for Public Finance and Policy (NIPFP).
He is now part of xKDR Forum and Jindal Global University. His research is at
the intersection of economics, law, and public administration.
His second book, co-authored with Vijay Kelkar, Jn service of the republic: The
art and science of economic policy, featured in Bloomberg’s global “2020 Best
Books on Business and Leadership.” His work can be accessed on his home page
(http://www.mayin.org/ajayshah).

Varsha Aithala is a Dr. N R Madhava Menon Doctoral Scholar (2020—2023) and

guest faculty at the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru. Her doc-
toral thesis examines the role of private capital in Indian legal system reform. Her
research interests span the areas of contract law, corporate law, legal system reform,
legal education, and the legal profession. She was a research fellow and visiting i

faculty at Azim Premji University, Bengaluru, where she offered courses on private
law and legal system reform.
She has more than 10 years of extensive experience in corporate and commercial
laws and has specialized in international and domestic private equity and venture
capital investment transactions.
She has a Master of Corporate Law degree from the University of Cambridge
and a Bachelor of Arts and Law (Honors) degree from Nalsar University of Law,
Hyderabad.
 Chapter 1
Crime Victimisation Surveys in Indian
Criminal Justice System Reform

Renuka Sane and Ajay Shah

1 The Criminal Justice System in the Larger Context

of State Building

The state is defined as a community that achieves and maintains a monopoly on

physical force in a given territory. State building consists of creating conditions
under which residents do not inflict violence upon one another. In the jargon of
public economics, the personal safety of citizens is a “public good.” It satisfies the
two tests for a public good: it is non-rival (your consumption of safety does not
diminish my safety) and non-excludable (we cannot exclude a newborn child from
the blanket of safety) (Kelkar & Shah, 2019). Hence, personal safety of residents is
a legitimate goal for the state.

We are grateful to Sudhir Krishnaswamy and Varsha Aithala who invited us to participate in their
research project on crime victimisation surveys. Our thinking on this was greatly shaped by our
collaborators for the IDFC Institute crime victimisation survey work (2017), where we worked
with Reuben Abraham, Pradnya Saravade, Neha Sinha, Avanti Durani and Rithika Kumar, the
CHRI crime victimisation survey work (2015) where we worked with Maja Daruvala, Devika
Prasad and Devyani Srivastava. We also thank Rajiv Mehrishi and Nandkumar Saravade for exten-
sive conversations on these questions.

R. Sane
NIPFP and xKDR Forum and Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana, India
A. Shah (24)
NIPFP and xKDR Forum, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
e-mail: ajayshah@ mayin.org

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022

S. Krishnaswamy et al. (eds.), Crime Victimisation in India, Springer Series
on Asian Criminology and Criminal Justice Research,
~ https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03 1-12251-4_1
 R. Sane and A. Shah
2

The criminal justice system is unusually important, from the viewpoint of both
economics and politics:
¢ In the political system, if individuals are not safe when organising political activ-
ities, the foundational concept of democracy—free competition between rival
political parties—breaks down.
¢ In the economic system, if individuals are not safe when conducting business
activities and imposing competitive pressure upon rivals, the foundational con-
cept of capitalism—free competition between rival firms—breaks down.
In both aspects (politics or economics), remarkably modest levels of violence are
required, in order to induce fear through a threat of violence. Once violence is a
feasible strategy for some individuals, even on a small scale, this gives a decline in
competitive conditions in politics and economics.
In politics and in economics, the hallmark of competitive conditions is close
elections and the lack of domination by one party, or one firm in the marketplace.
These yardsticks are only meaningful under free and fair conditions. Once violence
is in the picture, these yardsticks are no longer a sufficient condition for ascertaining
that healthy competition 1s in fray.
As an example, if one firm has 34% market share and another firm has 32% mar-
ket share, the interpretation changes sharply when the former firm deploys violence
upon the other. If competition in the market is free and fair, then it is reasonable to
think that the two firms have similar levels of productivity. If, however, one of the
two firms is gaining an upper edge through the use of violence (delivered either
through private persons or through employees of the state), then it is likely that this
firm has rough parity on market share but significantly inferior levels of
productivity.
The personal safety of residents is also linked to freedom of speech. Violence or
the threats of violence can be directed against persons who present uncomfortable
facts and arguments into the public domain, thus inducing a chilling effect, and
hampering both the political and economic life of a country.
For these reasons, protecting residents against internal violence is a fundamental
aspect of every successful state. Personal safety is of enormous intrinsic value: high
levels of safety directly generate welfare. Safety fosters exploration of the world, by
the individual, under conditions of freedom, which is a purpose of human existence.
The intertwined feedback loops of capitalism and freedom are founded in an envi-
ronment of unquestioned personal safety. Conversely, when safety is under threat, it
is not clear that political and economic freedom induces positive feedback loops
upon each other. Every state aspiring for high capabilities builds institutional capac-
ity to pursue the goal of the safety of residents. This is a combination of addressing
external threats, which are addressed through a combination of international rela-
tions and military capabilities, and internal threats, which requires the criminal jus-
tice system (CJS).
 { Crime Victimisation Surveys in Indian Criminal Justice System Reform 3

2 Building the Criminal Justice System

The criminal justice system (CJS) is the institutional infrastructure that ensures
safety of citizens. It consists of laws, courts, public prosecutors, police and prisons.
In India, there are foundational flaws in each of these elements, and across many
decades, a process of improvement has not commenced.! A research community is
required, which is able to understand the full landscape of the CJS, and undertake
the rational process of identifying problems, developing a strategic sense of the
required changes, and working on the practical aspects of the small improvements
which are made every day. A small process of thinking about courts has begun in
India, but on the remaining elements there is a weak landscape (Datta et al., 2019;
Saravade, 2015b; Shah, 2012).
As with many other fields, one strand of the Indian policy discourse on CJS
reform consists of technological solutionism. This assigns supremacy to building
computer equipment and associated monitoring mechanisms over the people such
as mass surveillance using video cameras. However, as has been seen with many
other fields in India, the human behaviour of the individuals that make up the state
is shaped by incentives, and a more fundamental transformation of organisations,
process manuals, power and incentives is required (Datta & Shah, 2015). Computer
technology can be a part of a useful reform process, but a digital-first approach is
generally unsuitable.
In the CJS, in particular, there is a greater danger of a digital-first approach
inducing intrusions into the privacy of individuals and tilting the balance of power
away from individuals and into the hands of state organisations (Bailey et al., 2018).
Computer technology can be a useful element of a sophisticated reform programme,
but such a reform programme needs to be primarily rooted in modifying the nature
of state power and the incentives of self-interested state functionaries.’ The first step
in such a reform programme is that of establishing basic measurement of the func-
tioning of the system.

3 The Role of Measurement

In most areas of public policy, it is useful to think in terms of a three-stage process:

'For example, see Bhandari (2016), Parsheera (2015), Saravade (2015a), and Saravade and
Sane (2013).
2For an analogy from the world of business, consider transformative “Business Process
Re-engineering” (BPR). BPR projects have repeatedly generated large improvements in productiv-
ity. All BPR projects involve computer technology. However, BPR projects are led by the top
management and primarily reshape organisation design, incentives and processes. A great deal of
computer engineering is an implementation pathway. If the computer engineering were present,
but the top management were not absorbed in a more fundamental reshaping of the organisation
design, the technology transformation by itself would not sufficiently reinvent the firm.
 R. Sane and A. Shah
4

Inputs

We start at the inputs, a design of government, which maps into recruitment of per-
sonnel, purchases of goods and services, and their deployment into operation of
exerting coercive force upon society, through a certain set of process manuals. The
inputs are ultimately grounded in a theory of change about the nature of the world
and the value of such state intervention. As an example, in the field of education, the
inputs are teachers recruited and school buildings built.

Outputs

The functionaries go about their process manuals and produce certain proximate
outputs. As an example, in the field of education, the outputs are students enrolled
and hours of teaching delivered.

T
e
i

Outcomes
S

Finally, there is the desired impact upon society, the outcome. As an example, in the
field of education, the outcome is the change in knowledge of children.°
Such an approach generates insights into whether the present strategy of inputs
and outcomes is able to generate the desired outcomes. The education bureaucracy
may like to count the number of teachers recruited, the number of schools built, the
number of children enrolled and the pass rate of students in the official examination
system. However, what matters most in measurement is finding a random sample of
15-year-olds and administering an internationally comparable test (the OECD
PISA) upon them, to judge the knowledge of science and mathematics in these
students.
This approach to outcomes measurement readily lends itself to bang-for-the-
buck measures. As an example, in the field of education, it is easy to measure the per
pupil expense (“PPE”). In the Indian case, over a period of the last 20 years, the PPE
has risen greatly while the outcomes have essentially not changed at all. This helps
question the theory of change that has shaped the existing design of inputs.
Similarly, in the field of bankruptcy, Shah and Thomas, 2017, define inputs as the
laws and the institutional infrastructure required for the bankruptcy process to work,
outputs as the transactions that go through the system, and outcomes as recovery
rates, and broader growth in the credit markets.

*See http://www.asercentre.org/Learning/Trends/-/p/375.html for the measurement of educational

outcomes by ASER.
 | Crime Victimisation Surveys in Indian Criminal Justice System Reform 7
A)

In the case of policing, inputs would be policemen or public prosecutors hired,

and police stations or jails built. Outputs may be measured from within the MIS of
the police. This would include measures such as the number of cases filed, the num-
ber of cases where prosecution in court commenced, the success rate in achieving
conviction and the crime rate (as measured in the MIS of the police). The outcomes
would be a citizen-centric view of law and order. They are the ultimate output that
we seek to deliver. They consist of three things: (a) the actual incidence of crime as
reported by the people (and not as counted in the MIS of the police), (b) trust in the
policing system and (c) perception of safety that enables freedom in behaviour.
There is quite a bit of knowledge, internationally, on how some of this measure-
ment is done. For an array of standardised crimes (e.g., theft of a car), a random
sample of households is asked questions:
|. In the last 1 year, have you or your immediate family experienced this crime?
2. If you did, did you go to the police and was it a satisfactory experience?
3. If, hypothetically, you were to experience this crime in the future, would you go
to the police?
The advantage of this household survey-based measurement is that it avoids the
infirmities of the MIS systems within the police. If households prefer to not file an
FIR, or if filing FIRs is difficult, then crime events would not show up in the police
MIS systems. In contrast, household survey-based measurement generates direct
evidence of the outcome.
An important element of all public goods problems lies in “coping costs.” For
example, when the electricity supply is bad, we buy voltage stabilisers or genera-
tors. It is, hence, important to measure the adaptations and distortions of behaviour
of households that are caused by the prospective fear of crime. This would include
questions such as:
1. How much are you spending for security-related services?
2. At what time in the evening do you feel it is unsafe for your teenage daughter to
be out alone?
A good state of law and order is one where households lead an unencumbered
life, where they do not suffer from costs of coping. The decision of a resident to
engage in economic activity or political activity should not be shaped by the threat
of violence that might be encountered.
The measurement of crime as seen from citizens versus the measurement of
crime as seen in the official police MIS will throw up some discrepancies which are
also interesting. They portray the unwillingness of citizens to go to the police. Our
first task is to establish our statistical system. This requires ongoing measurement
through two tracks: (a) internal MIS of the police and (b) survey-based measure-
ment of outcomes.
6 R. Sane and A. Shah

4 Crime Victimisation Surveys in India

In India, small-scale city-based surveys measuring crime have been conducted since
the 1980s. These include surveys that studied causes of victimisation, or the percep-
tion of the citizens by police and lawyers in the 1980s (Krishna et al., 1981; Rajan
& Krishna, 1981). The first crime victims survey, with a sample of 1000 respon-
dents, took place in 1992: International Crime (Victim) Survey in Bombay (ICS
Bombay). This was followed by surveys in four cities of Tamil Nadu—Madurai,
Coimbatore, Trichy, and Chennai, in 2001 (Chockalingham, 2003). In 2007 and
2008, a survey was conducted in Rajasthan that also asked questions on non-
reporting of crime (Banerjee et al., 2021). This survey showed that 1.7% of indi-
viduals were victims of a crime in the prior year and that 5.9% of households had at
least one member who was a victim of a crime. Theft was the most common type of
crime (37.9% of all the reported crimes), followed by burglary (16.6%) and
assault (12%).4
In 2015 and 2017, there were two large-scale crime victimisation surveys con-
ducted by the CHRI (Project Vishwas Setu) and the IDFC Institute (SATARC),
respectively. The former surveyed 5850 households in Mumbai and 4950 house-
holds in Delhi while the latter surveyed in Chennai and Bangalore in addition to
Mumbai and Delhi. Both surveys broadly asked three kinds of questions:
1. Was the respondent a victim of a crime in the last 1 year? (such as theft, house
break-in, sexual harassment, assault, criminal intimidation, unnatural death and
missing persons)
2. Did the respondent report this to the police? Did the police respond appropri-
ately? If the households chose to not report to the police, what were their reasons?
3. Do households feel safe in their neighbourhoods? Or in public transport? At dif-
ferent times of the day?
Both these surveys were focused on urban regions. The Karnataka Crime
Victimization Survey (KVCS), 2018-2019, moved this forward to the full state of
Karnataka thus allowing a better understanding of both urban and rural regions in
the state. The KCVS also expanded the range of crimes to include public order
offences like rioting, arson and unlawful assembly, and offences committed by gov-
ernment officials like bribery and abuse of power.
Another important survey is the Status of Policing in India Reports (SPIR) in
2018 and 2019, which not only measured the perception on the incidence of crime
but also measured the perceptions and response of the police personnel. This is
interesting as it gives us a perspective on how those manning the system look at

‘Another source of information on incidence of crime have been surveys such as the India Human
Development Survey (IHDS) and the National Family Health Survey (NFHS)—though strictly not
about measuring crime—they provide an indicator of some kinds of crimes experienced by survey
respondents.
 | Crime Victimisation Surveys in Indian Criminal Justice System Reform 7

crime, and their role in ensuring safety. It also helps us understand the “how” and
“why” behind the crime.
There are some similarities as well as differences in what one learns from the
three crime vicitimisation surveys. The KCVS, for example, reports a crime victimi-
sation rate of 30%, that is nearly double that reported by the CHRI survey. This may
be associated with much greater crime rates in rural India. The SPIR finds that
people’s perceptions of crime differ greatly from the actual number of reported
crimes in the same region—states that have the highest reported crime (such as
Kerala) have the lowest perception of crime.
All four surveys have similar findings on reporting behaviour of victims of
crimes—that is, there is large-scale under-reporting of crime. The process of report-
ing, and dealing with the system, is one of the prime reasons why people do not
wish to deal with the police. The surveys also point to under-reporting by the
police—when households do make it to the police station, they often are not able to
register an FIR, reinforcing the reluctance to go in the first place. The KCVS survey
points out that this is not uniform across complaints—registering property offences
is easier than offences against the body and law. The SPIR survey also points to
heterogeneity in the ability to register cases—the situation gets progressively worse
for economically or socially vulnerable groups.
Despite these gaps, people’s perception of the police is better than what one
would have imagined. The surveys three CVS surveys show that around 50% of the
victims are satisfied with the police response. However, as the SPIR points out, this
overall satisfaction does not, at the same time, diminish the fear of the police.
The surveys also find that a large number of households feel “safe” in their
neighbourhoods in cities such as Chennai, Bangalore, and in the state of Karnataka.
Mumbai also does reasonably well. Delhi, however, fares poorly on the perception
of safety with more than half the respondents saying that crime is a serious problem.

5 The Way Forward

The criminal justice system is a core public good. The ultimate goal of state build-
ing in a liberal democracy is that the safety of residents should be unquestioned,
which would create conditions for creativity and leadership. This calls for a high
prioritisation of the elements of the criminal justice system.
One of the first steps towards this aspiration is the measurement of how the sys-
tem works, and where and why it fails. This can help understand the correlations
between other aspects of society—such as employment, education, and prosper-
ity—with those of crime. Such an understanding then lays the foundation for devis-
ing solutions. For example, one solution that is often talked of to reduce crime is to
improve the quality of streetlights in public places. A regular measurement system
also helps in evaluating whether policy actions are leading to the desired result. In
the streetlight example, it would be useful to know what impact did the lights have
on incidence of crime? Did they help as we had expected them to? If not, why did
 R. Sane and A. Shah
8

they not help. This can help policymakers do course correction before it is too late.
There are two areas where we can make tangible progress in measuring the CJS.
1. Reported crime data: Improving the quality of measurement should begin with
the data capture of registration of complaints and FIRs at the police station. As
we have seen from survey evidence, there is a big gap between actual crime and
EEE
TEE
Oe
i“Sal
S Si

registered crime. This gap needs to be reduced so that crime records can become
more reliable. In India, the logistics of crime measurement are also problematic;
in that, crime is recorded at the police station and then aggregated at the district
and state level. If the data flows through the various layers are filled with leak-
ages, then even if the reporting improves at the station level, the aggregate statis-
tics at the district, state and national level, will be beset with errors.
There are two responses that are important. First, recording of data at the level
of the police station should be given priority and should not be left as a “resid-
ual” duty for a relatively junior constable. These data need to be captured digi-
tally, and the data entry staff needs to be trained through a detailed process
manual on the process of classification of crime as well as entering the records.
This will help with achieving consistency of data across the country, and recon-
ciling records as the data becomes more aggregated.
. Survey data: Beyond official data, there is a need to measure household interac-
tions with the criminal justice system. As discussed earlier, welfare of citizens is
the ultimate outcome of the criminal justice system. The surveys discussed in
this paper are an important start to more systematic, comprehensive and continu-
ous measurement of citizen experience with crime and the CJS. For the survey
data to be credible, it needs to be conducted by independent groups (such as the
role played by ASER in education). The existence of such survey data will allow
researchers to build a literature on the causes and consequences of crime.
A critical component of such measurement is the existence of “panel data,”
which provides repeated measurements on individuals across time. This makes
it possible for us to understand how crime trends and safety perceptions have
evolved over time. It also helps to study how changes in social or economic con-
ditions of individuals affect crime relative to changes in macro-economic condi-
tions, or changes in policy.
An example of how research on crime and safety is a study of women’s labour
force participation. A unique problem that is faced in India is the lack of wom-
en’s labour force participation (LFP). Indian women’s LFP is at 21%, which is
one of the lowest rates in the world. In Bangladesh, it is 36%; in Sri Lanka, it is
34%; in Pakistan, it is 22%; and in China, it is 61%.° A great research effort is
underway, where economists, sociologists and anthropologists are deciphering
the sources of the low women’s LFP in India. It is likely that low levels of per-
sonal safety constitute one important constraint which is holding women back. If
we are able to understand this constraint better and improve conditions of safety,

* See https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLE.CACT.FE.ZS
 | Crime Victimisation Surveys in Indian Criminal Justice System Reform
Y

we would have a large impact upon women’s LEP (which is an important objec-
tive in and of itself) and upon GDP.
Once a measurement system is in place, it should be used as an input into policy-
making. Measurement is also important in that it makes available “local knowl-
edge” that can lead to a programme of reform based on the state of personal Safety
and conditions in each location. For example, if evidence points to certain parts of
India faring worse on crime and safety perceptions, then resources can be targeted
towards those regions. The police departments in each region can design responses
based on the problems in their jurisdictions. Similarly, if it emerges that there is a
systematic pattern in when crimes occur, or on the kinds of victims that get targeted,
then policy can be designed to tackle such crime. The research literature on the
criminal justice system in India is in its early stages, as is the feedback from research
into policymaking. Improvements in measurement should be the catalyst in making
this transformation.

6 Conclusion

Most elements of the Indian state work poorly. The CJS is a particularly important
element of the state, as personal safety is an essential precondition for the inter-
twined working of democratic politics and the market economy. In the sequencing
of the elements that will make the Republic of India a mature market economy
located in a liberal democracy, one of the highest priorities should be the establish-
ment of a capable CJS, the interlinked institutional apparatus of laws, courts, police,
public prosecutors and prisons.
Measurement of crime through FIR is limited (as the police exercise discretion
on what FIRs are filed, victims may choose to not report crimes, and the process of
capturing and the releasing the statistics is limited), Crime victimisation surveys,
carried out on a household panel, can create important new knowledge about crime
rates, the perceptions about the police in the eyes of the people and the extent to
which the lives of the people are distorted owing to the fear of crime.
Such data would be enormously influential. It would help measure the causes and
consequences of changes to personal safety, assess the progress (or lack thereof)
about this foundational public good and support better decision-making at the lead-
ership of the institutions that make up the CJS.
Early work on building CVS datasets in India has begun. Many of the papers in
this book report on these experiences. There is a complex agenda for CJS reform,
that is an essential element of India’s journey in the days to come. Building high-
quality CVS data is a precondition for progress on the overall agenda of CJS reform.
 R. Sane and A. Shah
10

References

by intelligence
Bailey, R., Bhandari, V., Parsheera, S., & Rahman, F. (2018). Use of personal data
and law enforcement agencies (tech. rep.). NIPFP.
ing police
Banerjee, A., Chattopadhyay, R., Duflo, E., Keniston, D., & Singh, N. (2021). Improv
performance in Rajasthan, India: Experimental evidence on incentives, managerial auton-
doi.
omy, and training. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 13(1), 36-66. https://
org/10.1257/pol.20190664
Bhandari, V. (2016). Pretrial detention in India: An examination of the causes and possible solu-
tions. Asian Journal of Criminology, 11, 83-110. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/
$11417-015-9218-x
Chockalingham, K. (2003). Criminal victimization in four major cities in Southern India. Forum
on Crime and Society. United Nations Office on Drugs; Crime.
Datta, P., & Shah, A. (2015). How to make courts work? The Leap Blog, 22 February 2015. https://
blog.theleapjournal.org/2015/02/how-to-make-courts-work.html
Datta, P., Hans, M., Mishra, M., Patnaik, I., Regy, P., Roy, S., Sapatnekar, S., Shah, A., Singh,
A. P., & Sundaresan, S. (2019). How to modernise the working of Courts and Tribunals in
India. NIPFP Working Paper no 258. https://www.nipfp.org.in/media/medialibrary/2019/03/
WP%5C2019%5C258.pdf
Kelkar, V., & Shah, A. (2019). In service of the republic: The art and science of economic policy.
Penguin Allen Lane. http://www.mayin.org/ajayshah/books/isotr2019.html
Krishna, K. P., Iqbal, M., & Khan, M. Z. (1981). Police - Community relations — A study in
images. Indian Journal of Criminology, 9(1), 14-22.
Parsheera, S. (2015). Reforms of prosecution in the Indian criminal justice system. The Leap Blog,
7 May 2015. https://blog.theleapjournal.org/2015/05/reforms-of-prosecution-in-indian.html
Rajan, V. N., & Krishna, K. P. (1981). Victims of homicide. Institute of Criminology and Forensic
Science. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles 1/Digitization/84653NCJRS.pdf
Saravade, N. (2015a). Reinventing the criminal justice system (Part I of 2). The Leap Blog, 11
March 2015. https://blog.theleapjournal.org/2015/03/reinventing-criminal-justice-system.html
Saravade, N. (2015b). Reinventing the criminal justice system (Part 2 of 2). The Leap Blog, 20 March
2015. https://blog.theleapjournal.org/2015/03/reinventing-criminal-justice-system20.html
Saravade, P., & Sane, R. (2013). What ails the police? The Leap Blog, 12 May 2013. https://blog.
theleapjournal.org/2013/05/what-ails-police.html
Shah, A. (2012). Law and order: How to go from outrage to action. The Leap Blog, 23 December
2012. https://blog.theleapjournal.org/2012/12/law-and-order-how-to-go-from-outrage-to.html
Shah, A., & Thomas, S. (2017). The Indian bankruptcy reform: The state of the art, 2017. The Leap
Blog, 13 July 2017. https://blog.theleapjournal.org/2017/07/the-indian-bankruptcy-reform-
state-of.html
 Chapter 2
Crime Victimization and Safety Perception
Survey: Delhi and Mumbai

Devyani Srivastava and Devika Prasad

1 Introduction

The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) commissioned! a crime vic-

timization and safety perception survey in the cities of Delhi and Mumbai in 2014
to collect data on incidence of crime, features of the crime(s) experienced, house-
holds’ reporting to the police, satisfaction levels with the police response, and per-
ceptions of safety. At the time of its publication in 2015, this was the first known
systematic attempt to record the actual crime experience of residents in both Delhi
and Mumbai. While crime victimization surveys have long been recognized world
over for their usefulness in measuring crime and informing policing and public
safety priorities, India is yet to adopt this as a regular practice. In this light, this
chapter identifies the unique insights that can be gained through such surveys to
shape better-informed policies and decision-making on policing, crime prevention
strategies, and public safety. It further attempts to share reflections on lessons learnt
with regard to the survey methodology and the field experience while administering
the survey. It is hoped this will contribute to the scholarship around crime victimiza-
tion surveys emanating from India, as well as provide critical reflections and learn-
ing from this holistic survey effort to propel and strengthen both governmental and
local surveys across the country.

'Nielson India Pvt. Ltd. administered the survey, prepared the statistical analysis, and provided
preliminary drafts of the survey report.

D. Srivastava (24) - D. Prasad

Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, New Delhi, India
e-mail: devyani @humanrightsinitiative.org

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 11

S. Krishnaswamy et al. (eds.), Crime Victimisation in India, Springer Series
on Asian Criminology and Criminal Justice Research,
~ https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03 1-12251-4_2
 D. Srivastava and D. Prasad
12

The need for periodic crime victimization surveys is linked to envisioning better
policing—a key area of intervention for CHRI. In India, the police are endemically
under-resourced. It is imperative to allocate funds and personnel wisely. To do this,
using a variety of techniques and processes to know where crime is occurring,
where the public feels unsafe, and gaps between crime incidence and reported
crime, can help the police to make informed decisions about crime prevention and
reduction strategies, as well as public outreach initiatives. While existing crime sta-
tistics, such as those collected by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), can
give some insight into crime trends, these data are not comprehensive. NCRB data
rely on crime reported at police stations, and not all incidents of crime are reported.
Further, if not all police stations send data—whether because they lack the person-
nel, digital records systems or other resources to do so—even some reported crime
will be missing from the official statistics.
Such gaps grow wider when we consider the urban-rural divide. An additional,
and even more concerning, problem revolves around accusations of “burking”—or,
police refusal to register reported crimes due to pressure to keep the crime rate low.
Each of these limitations, though they may not all be equally widespread, means
that NCRB data provide an incomplete picture. It certainly does not capture unre-
ported crime, public satisfaction with the police, or the public’s perceptions of
safety. Periodic public surveys are the only reliable medium to collect this informa-
tion. These can assess most accurately where, when, and to whom crime is occur-
ring. In the United Kingdom and numerous other countries, crime victimization
surveys are undertaken to estimate the difference between the official crime rate,
and the actual experience and reporting of crime. Through such surveys, it is pos-
sible to ask why individuals did not report crimes to the police, as well as assess the
public’s overall safety perception. In these ways, these surveys provide the most
holistic picture of crime incidence and experience, quantitative assessments of pub-
lic satisfaction levels with the police first response, and safety perceptions.
In addition, crime victimization survey findings can help identify the resource
needs of the police. Findings would be able to show what resources are needed, and
where, to meet the public’s safety needs. Using these data, the police and govern-
ment can frame budgetary/resource/human resource allocations to match the
demands and needs of public safety.
Lastly, these surveys can also act as tools for police accountability, particularly
as they can measure how many reported complaints the police actually register, or
not. Police delay or refusal to register complaints into FIRs is a denial of access to
justice right at the gateway of the legal system. In India, refusal to register com-
plaints of specific offences is a punishable offence under the Indian Penal Code and
some special laws. Surveys provide a quantum of unregistered complaints, giving
police leadership, and departments as a whole, data from which to consider taking
measures to prevent refusal, and enforce accountability systemically.
CHRI’s survey was administered in Delhi and Mumbai. The two metropolitan
cities were selected for their large, diverse populations as well as for their unique
policing characteristics. Both stand out as having the largest police strength among
urban police departments.
Another Significant factor was that Delhi Police and Mumbai Police are both
police commissionerates and thereby vest greater operational autonomy with the
 Crime Victimization and Safety Perception Survey: Delhi and Mumbai 13

police leadership at the city level than non-commissionerates. Due to this, it was felt
that there may be a greater chance of pick-up by the police leadership of the findings
of a crime victimization survey and prompt faster systemic responses.
Finally,
potential replicability was another reason to hone in on two cities, with the rationale
that police organizations, particularly smaller and mid-sized ones, could more eas-
ily draw lessons from city-level survey experiences than larger state-level surveys.
The survey focused on seven cognizable crime categories—theft, assault, house
break-in, sexual harassment, criminal intimidation, un-natural death, and missing
persons. We chose these seven because they are broad crime categories that occur
frequently, and because when most of them are reported, the police must register
them by filing a First Information Report (FIR) and initiate investigation.

Criminal law in India categorizes crimes as either cognizable or non-

cognizable. Cognizable offences are serious crimes defined under Section
2(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) in accordance with the
First Schedule of the CrPC, or any other relevant law in force. For cognizable
crimes, the police have the authority to arrest without a warrant and start an
investigation without the permission of a Judicial Magistrate. Non-cognizable
offences and cases, defined in Section 2(1) are less serious.
A First Information Report is a written document prepared by the police
when they receive information about the alleged commission of a cognizable
offence. It is only after the FIR is registered at the police station that the police
can start the investigation into the occurrence. |

“Missing persons” itself is not a criminal offence. When a person is reported

missing, the police enter the details in designated registers in the police station and
immediately initiate investigation to determine whether a crime has occurred, for
instance, murder or kidnapping. A complaint or First Information Report (FIR) is
registered only when evidence or reasonable suspicion of any criminal activity
related to the missing person is found. To note, the police must follow different
procedures when a child is reported missing.
Among sexual crimes codified in Indian law, CHRI decided to cover only the
offence of sexual harassment in the Indian Penal Code (IPC).* Sexual harassment is
defined in Section 354A of the IPC as follows:
1. A man committing any of the following acts-
(i) Physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual
overtures; or
(ii) A demand or request for sexual favours; or
(iii) Showing pornography against the will of a woman; or
(iv) Making sexually coloured remarks,
shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.

2This is distinct from sexual harassment in the workplace which is defined in a separate law.
 D. Srivastava and D. Prasad
14

It is important to note that sexual harassment has been codified in the IPC as
gender-specific—only men can be perpetrators and only women can be victims. The
first three acts contained in the Section are punishable with rigorous imprisonment
which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both. Making “sexually coloured
remarks” is punishable with a maximum prison term of | year, or fine, or both.
We also sought to survey how the experience of households facing might differ
by socio-economic profiles and therefore selected samples of high-, mid-, and low-
income households.
Overall, the survey covered 4950 households in Delhi and 5850 households in
Mumbai. The survey was conducted in July-August 2015; households were

Non-inclusion of Rape and Sexual Assault against Children

While designing the survey, we decided to exclude the offences of rape or
sexual offences against children. This is mainly due to the recognized limita-
tions and difficulties in seeking to capture the experience of rape or other
sexual offences as part of an omnibus crime survey. A panel of experts consti-
tuted by the US government to look at the issue of measuring rape and sexual
assault as part of their National Crime Victimisation Survey highlighted at
least four major obstacles.’ These include a high degree of error in sampling
with greater difficulty in ensuring a credible sample size of rape and sexual
assault victims through the household sampling; the difficulties created in
seeking to measure rape in the context of crime due to the fear of information
being disclosed to the police; stricter requirements of privacy which an omni-
bus survey may not be able to ensure; and the use of ambiguous terms in the
questionnaire which may not yield accurate results. The panel went on to
recommend an independent survey—separate from the National Crime
Victimisation Survey—for measuring rape and sexual assault.
CHRI shared similar concerns. As in any context, surveying women and
children in India on sexual assault requires base knowledge of the law at least
in terms of the offence, nuance, and sensitivity. More so with the expansion of
the definition of rape in law in 2013, an accurate measure of a victim’s experi-
ence would require the right questions to be asked around specific acts that
took place in the course of the alleged assault, and the circumstances on con-
sent. Interacting with women would have to be mindful of the deep stigma
associated with admitting, or even just saying “rape,” for many, and how to be
able to address these in designing and administering a survey that is seeking
objective answers to direct questions on crime experience and reporting. The
age-appropriate language to be used with children is another issue and neces-
sary factor of the readiness and orientation of the survey team. We were also
mindful of the psychological impact it may have on survivors. Perhaps even

(continued)

*National Research Council (2014).

 Crime Victimization and Safety Perception Survey: Delhi and Mumbai 1S

sensitively framed questions on rape can trigger trauma, fear, and apprehen-
sion. The questioning itself requires an extremely sensitive approach, includ-
ing dealing with issues that may arise as a result of it. Another serious concern
was the high probability of the perpetrator being within the family and the
crime itself occurring within the home. Concern on this is backed by official
crime statistics, which consistently reveals that a large proportion of reported
rape cases are where the victim knows the offender. In 2019, for instance, the
victim knew the offender in 94.2% of the reported rape cases in that year.
There were practical limitations tied to the apprehensions above. When
CHRI conducted the pilot, the surveying team reported just how difficult it
was to seek privacy while speaking with women within the household, and
how difficult it was even to capture sexual offences such as sexual harassment
and stalking. Including rape would necessitate a team comprising only of
women, and conducting rigorous training both on skills and on legal
provisions.
For these reasons, we felt that the level of expertise involved in this was
neither feasible with the available resources, nor appropriate.
We strongly recommend that offences like rape require their own special-
ized surveys, and they should not be lumped together with other crime catego-
ries. They will require very carefully crafted methodology that takes into
account the trauma and fear that survivors may experience. The household
survey methodology is not at all suitable in surveys focused on sexual assault
as it can trigger trauma for women and children and cause tensions within
families/households.

surveyed based on their experiences in the preceding 12-month period (July 2014 to
June 2015).

2 CHRI 2015 Survey: Sampling and Survey Methodology

The survey was administered at the household level in Delhi and Mumbai and cov-
ered all districts/zones in the cities. It included households, both owned and rented,
among low-income, mid-income, and high-income categories and sought to distin-
guish the experience of recent migrants to the city against long term residents. The
survey was confined to adult members only and did not extend to crimes experi-
enced by minors. Only female adult members of the household were asked ques-
tions relating to sexual harassment.
 D. Srivastava and D. Prasad
16

Survey Structure

The survey covered four subjects:

I. Crime Incidence (Part A)
The objective here was to estimate the incidence of seven crime categories:
theft, assault, house break-in, sexual harassment, criminal intimidation, unnat-
ural death, and missing persons. These were chosen as they represent a broad
cross section of crimes that occur frequently.
II. Crime Characteristics (Part B)
This component focused on understanding the characteristics of the crime
committed such as sub-categories of crime, where and when it was committed,
who was the perpetrator and ifs/he was known to the victim.
III. Crime Reporting and Police Response (Part C)
Part C focused on the reporting behavior of the victim, whether the crime
was reported to the police and the experience thereof, and if the crime was not
reported, the reasons thereof.
IV. Perception of Safety (Part D)
This component addressed how safe respondents felt in their neighbour-
hoods, as well as in city travel.
The complete survey is presented in Annexure 1. The survey exercise was con-
ducted in July-August 2015 and asked households to answer the questions based on
their experiences in the preceding 12-month period (July 2014 to June 2015).

Sampling

The study follows a multi-stage sampling design, similar to that used in India’s
National Sample Survey,’ the US Census Bureau Surveys,° and numerous others.
We sought to reliably estimate the rate of crime incidence at the police zone
level. Delhi at the time was divided into 11 administrative police zones and Mumbai
into 13. At a 95% confidence level and 5% margin of error, the required sample size
is 384 for each zone.
Given the lack of reliable data on the true crime rate in either city, we decided to
keep a buffer of 15% at the zone level, and the sample size was set at 450 house-
holds per zone. This gave an overall sample size of 4950 households in Delhi and
5850 households in Mumbai.
In the first stage of selecting geographical areas from which we would draw a
sample of households, we used stratified random sampling to choose three census
wards° within each police zone. All wards in each zone were first assigned to an
income stratum,’ based on whether a majority of households in the ward were high-,

‘For example, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (2015).

’ For example, Murphy (2008).
° Wards that fell into two or more police zones were excluded for the purposes of this study.
 2 Crime Victimization and Safety Perception Survey: Delhi and Mumbai 17

mid-, or low-income.* Thereafter, one ward from each stratum was randomly
selected from every zone.
In the absence of information on the exact number of households in each zone
according to income level, an equal number of households were sampled from each
stratum in each police zone. With 450 sample households from each zone, this
translated into 150 households? per sample ward.
In the second stage, each selected ward was subdivided into one-square kilome-
tre grids.'® We excluded from selection any grids that had a different income level
than that which was dominant in the ward. For example, in a high-income ward,
mid- and low-income grids were omitted and random selection was performed only
on high-income grids.'' We chose 3 of these in each ward.
In the third stage, within each grid we selected a random starting point from
which surveyors went continuously household to household until reaching our quota
of 50, in order to meet the target of 150 households per ward. While the random
walk and quota methods can be subject to limitations,!” these sampling procedures
have been successfully used in numerous studies. Given the expense of completing
a full household listing in each grid, it was determined that this procedure would
best meet the objectives of the study within time and resource constraints.

Income level served as the basis for the stratification; though it would be ideal to adjust strata for
other parameters as well, budgetary constraints prohibited this. Income nevertheless does have
strong correlations with other socio-economic parameters. Because crime incidence is likely to
vary based on income and other socio-economic factors, we hoped this stratification would give
insight into how households of different income levels are affected by crime.
*The Nielsen Neighbourhood Skyline (NSL) database was used to identify the income level of
each ward. NSL provides a profile of household socio-economic demographics at the neighbour-
hood level for the top 57 cities in India. It includes information on income, savings, and expendi-
ture of the households living in the neighbourhood, in addition to providing details on road
networks, markets, connectivity parameters, etc. High income was defined as a majority of house-
holds earning Rs | million or more per year, mid-income as Rs 0.3—1 million per year, and low-
income as less than Rs 0.3 million per year. The geographical units discussed here generally track
those defined by municipal boundaries.
* With sampling spread across 11 police zones in Delhi and 13 in Mumbai, the sample size for each
income strata is representative at (a) the city level with 3% margin of error at 95% confidence level
and (b) at the zone level with 8% margin of error at 95% confidence level.
'!°This division was based on Nielsen’s Cell Grid Geo-spatial Database. This database is based on
semi-automated algorithms employing Small Area Statistics and Geo-spatial Analytics techniques
to disaggregate socio-economic data for a given geographic area into a grid consisting of cells,
each having an area approximately | sq. km. The database includes economic, demographic, infra-
structure, and land cover data for every cell.
"Given the desire to determine statistical validity at the zone level, as well as cost and time con-
straints, we employed stratified sampling at the ward level. To ensure that grids appropriately repre-
sented the income level stratification of the ward as a whole, it was necessary to guarantee homogeneity
of income level in the selection of grids. Admittedly, this imposes the limitation that the study would
not capture whether the crime profile of heterogeneous localities differed from homogeneous ones.
'2 Anthony G. Turner, United Nations Secretariat Statistics Division (2003), as on 20 December
2015. For more details on various procedures for conducting random walks, see generally Juergen
H.P. Hoffmeye-Zlotnik (2003). Out of the zone level sample of 450, 150 were to be drawn from
each of three income strata, with 50 from each grid. A floor of 30 crime-affected households per
zone was set. Had 30 households not been reached in this initial sweep, we would have increased
the number of households surveyed by 50 until meeting that quota.
 18 D. Srivastava and D. Prasad

Survey Administration

Nielson’s field interviewers administered the survey in both the cities. The training
of the interviewers involved a dedicated session with the CHRI team on legal provi-
sions relating to the selected crimes, procedures for reporting and registration of
crime, and an overview of the duties of the police in ensuring public safety. The
interviewers were given background notes and checklists to explain legal provisions,
including the ingredients of each crime with a focus on sexual offences brought in
following criminal law amendments in 2013; differences between cognizable and
non-cognizable offences; differences in the procedure for reporting and registering
a complaint and a First Information Report; safeguards for women in reporting a
crime; and other relevant special provisions pertaining to missing persons.
A pilot was carried out covering 100 households each in Delhi and Mumbai. The
pilot highlighted several challenges the interviewers faced in accessing households.
Many families expressed hesitation to talk to the survey team, or participate in the
survey because it related to crimes and their experience with the police. Some
among those that had experienced crime were fearful that the information being
collected would get reported to the police. To instil confidence in the independence
and credibility of the survey process, CHRI provided an authorization letter to the
survey teams with contact details of relevant persons within the organization. The
conduct of the survey would have been improved through more stringent checks of
completed survey forms throughout the duration of the surveys.
Part A of the survey, which addressed demographic characteristics and whether
households were affected by crime, was administered to each of the households
identified in the process outlined above.
Parts B and C addressed characteristics of crime, such as where and when crime
occurred, and victims’ experiences when reporting to the police.'? These parts were
administered to all of the crime-affected households identified in Part A; this
resulted in a total of 647 households in Delhi (13% of sample households) and 927
(15% of sample households) in Mumbai.
As there was no a priori information on incidence of any of the 7 crimes, it was
not possible to set a quota for the individual crimes. Theft turned out to be the most
common crime (506 incidents in Delhi and 746 in Mumbai), while in both cities
fewer than 100 households were victims of each of the other six crimes. Consequently,

“With regard to police response, the questionnaire contained several questions with multiple or
nuanced answers, such as on cases of missing persons, or knowing whether the police properly
registered a First Information Report. While CHRI provided background on law and criminal pro-
cedure, it was a challenge for the surveyors (who are not subject experts) to frame clarifying ques-
tions when needed. This may have resulted in some flaws in the findings presented here, even
though they faithfully represent the answers given by respondents. One additional benefit, then, of
the government undertaking routine crime victimization surveys would be to better train surveyors
and build capacity to get more accurate answers, and preserve such institutional knowledge and
practice over time. With this kind of robust data, the findings would best be able to help the police
and government make decisions about deployment, training, and resource allocation, among others.
 2 Crime Victimization and Safety Perception Survey: Delhi and Mumbai 19

the analysis of reporting behaviour or police response in this section can be consid-
ered to be representative only at the city level and for all 7 crimes taken together.
Part D assessed the safety perception of residents in Delhi and Mumbai. To attain
reliability at the city level, the sample size was set at 3025 respondent households in
Delhi and 3575 households in Mumbai. Statistically, the sample size is representa-
tive at the city level at 95% confidence level and 2% margin of error. With 11 police
zones in Delhi and 13 in Mumbai, this results in 275 samples per police zone.'4
City-level representativeness of the safety perception of crime-affected house-
holds at a 95% confidence level and 5% margin of error would require 384 sample
households. As such, analysis of the safety perception of crime-affected households
will be representative at the city level as long as the crime incidence rate in Delhi
and Mumbai is greater than 12.59% and 10.74%, respectively.'®
With no a priori information on the actual rate of incidence of crime, it was
decided to administer Part D to all crime-affected households. Thus, assuming X7 to
be the number of crime-affected households in a police zone (and X™ to be the
number of crime-affected households in a ward), 275-XZ would be the number of
non-victim households sampled per zone (90-X™ per ward). With this design, the
city-level sample would be representative of the perception of non-victim house-
holds at a 95% confidence level and 3% margin of error even if the incidence of
crime exceeds 25%.
A brief demographic profile of our sample is shown below Table 2.1:

Weights

The absence of a household sampling frame and lack of information on crime inci-
dence or reporting behaviour across geographic or socio-economic factors, even at
the city level, did not allow computation of household-level weights. We attempted
a limited city-level weight computation based only on the number of households
according to income, for which city-level information was available (Table 2.2).
The same was used for estimating the city-level projection of the number of
households affected by crime. However, the same was not used at subsequent levels
when estimating reporting incidence, as the number of households in each income
strata who had reported crime to the police fell below 384 per strata (the minimum
required sample size for a city-level representation at 95% confidence level and 5%
margin of error). This statistically constrained the computation of a city-level
weighted ratio for crime reporting behaviour.

'4The analysis at the zone level will be representative at 95% confidence level with 6% margin
of error.
'S This was computed by dividing 384 (the minimum required sample size for city level representa-
tion) by the respective city sample sizes: 3025 in Delhi and 3575 in Mumbai. Ex post, the ratios
were computed to be 13% (15%) in Delhi (Mumbai).
20 D. Srivastava and D. Prasad

Table 2.1 Demographic profile of the sample of CHRI 2015 survey

PartsBandC: crime _| Part D:
Part A: crime characteristics, reporting, |perception of
incidence and police response Safety
Delhi |Mumbai | Delhi Mumbai |Delhi |Mumbai
Total in sample 4990 647 927 |3035 |3658
‘Income level |Low 239 371 1013 |1214
of households 1667 |1999 [248
—*(317 10031243
Gender of
High
Male
1666 2008 [160
2290 |4030
(239
275 620
~~ 1335 | 2410
1019/1201
respondent 2700 |2006 |372 307 1700 |1248
Length of Greater than | 4631 | 5893 605 2810 | 3561
residency 5 years in city
Greater than 804 2316 3204
5 years at
current
address
Source: Crime Victimization Survey, CHRI, 2015

Table 2.2 City-level weights computation for the CHRI 2015 survey

No. of
Annual households
household (2014-15; in

Mumbai

>Rs 10 lakh
(High)

<Rs 3 lakh
(Low)

Source: Crime Victimization Survey, CHRI, 2015

2 Crime Victimization and Safety Perception Survey: Delhi and Mumbai

3. Key Findings

The findings of the survey are presented below under the following heads: (1).
Crime incidence and characteristics; (2) demographic profile of victimized house-
holds; (3) crime reporting and police response; and (4) overall safety perceptions.

Crime Incidence and Characteristics

The survey explored households’ experience of the selected crimes over a period of
| year (July 2014—June 2015) in both Delhi and Mumbai. Specifically, it sought to
measure the types of crimes most frequently experienced, the socio-economic pro-
file of the victimized households, and patterns, if any, of when and how the selected
crimes took place. The main findings are as follows:

Each Crime Was Experienced at Least Once in Both Delhi and Mumbai

Overall, 705 of the households surveyed in Delhi (14.13%) and 994 (16.47%) in
Mumbai faced one of the seven crime categories addressed in the survey. Some of
them fell victim to crime more than once, though the proportion was relatively small
(Table 2.3).

Table 2.3 Crime-wise percentage of households affected by crime

No. of households | No. of households % of households
Crime i surveyed affected by crime affected
Assault Delhi
|4990 S51 1.02%
Criminal Delhi [499017 0.34%
maenon [Mumbai
|6036 | |31 0.51%
House Break-in |Delhi |4990 [SI 1.02%
Mumbai |6036 | 65 1.08%
Missing Persons |Delhi [4990 | | 0.02%
[Mumbai |6036
13.05%
 DD. Srivastava and D. Prasad
22

Theft Was the Most Frequently Experienced Crime in Both Cities

Theft emerged as the most frequently experienced of the seven crimes surveyed in
both Delhi and Mumbai. 10.14% of households in Delhi (506) and 12.36% of
households in Mumbai (746) had been victimized by theft in the period covered. Of
these, nearly 20% of households in Delhi (100) and 14% in Mumbai (106) had been
victims of theft multiple times. As such, the total number of instances of theft
reported by the respondents was 650 and 874, respectively, in each city (Table 2.4).
In both cities, theft of a cell phone was the most common form of theft followed
by theft of luggage and theft of wallet, purse, or cash (Fig. 2.1). One notable finding
is that households in Delhi were victims of car theft much more so than those sur-
veyed in Mumbai. Car thefts accounted for 10% of theft cases in Delhi, compared
to only 1% in Mumbai.
These findings match official crime data reported by the National Crime Records
Bureau (NCRB). In 2014, theft constituted 51% of total cognizable crimes regis-
tered in Delhi, and 25% in Mumbai, representing the highest proportion of regis-
tered crimes in both cities.'° The NCRB data also bears out that auto theft cases are

Table 2.4 Crime category as a percentage of total crime cases

Delhi Mumbai
Cases of Cases of
crime by crime by
category category
Households asa%of | Households | Cases of as a % of
affected by i total crime | affected by | crime total crime
Crime type experienced | cases
Assault 5.97% —|98 {101 8.92%
Criminal 17 Le 1.99% 31 31 2.74%
Intimidation
House 51 51 5.97% 65 5.83%
Break-in
Missing : (
Persons
Sexual 75 9.37% 39 45 3.98%
Harassment

The
Un-natural
550 0.47% 12
Tr21%
12 1.06%
Death

Overall [708
(8d
Source: Crime Victimization Survey, CHRI, 2015

Peary Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs (2014), Crime in India 2014
able 2.2.
 2 Crime Victimization and Safety Perception Survey: Delhi and Mumbai 23

39.31%

47%

28.86%
25.16%
23.27

7.95%

ofs ®Delhi Mumbai P

g

*Cash and wallet/purse were separate answer categories in the survey, and are shown
tallied together here because they frequently occurred together.

Source: CHRI Survey, CHRI, 2015

Fig. 2.1 Composition of theft crime

higher in Delhi as compared to Mumbai with over 21,000 cases registered in Delhi
in 2014 and less than 4000 in Mumbai.!’
Further, a common trend across both cities is that a greater number of households
belonging to low-income and mid-income categories experienced theft than those in
the high-income category (Table 2.5). Of the households that experienced crime
only once in the period covered, 39% in Delhi and 38% in Mumbai belonged to
low-income, as compared to 25% and 28% of high-income households, respec-
tively. When it comes to households that experienced theft more than once, there is
a notable difference between the two cities. While in Delhi, the majority of the
households that experienced theft more than once belonged to mid-income (49%),
in Mumbai, majority (42%) belonged to low-income households.

Experience of Assault Slightly More in Mumbai than Delhi

Around 1% of victimized households in both cities had experienced a form of

assault in the year covered (Table 2.3). In Mumbai, physical assault cases consti-
tuted nearly 9% of the total crime cases covered by the survey, making it the second
most commonly experienced crime in the city after theft (Table 2.4). In Delhi, the
assault cases constituted about 6%, amounting to the third most experienced crime
following theft and sexual harassment. Two-thirds of assault cases in Delhi and

'7 National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs (2014), Crime in India 2014,
Table 2.2.
 D. Srivastava and D. Prasad
24

City | No. of thefts experienced | Total | Low-income | Mid-income — | High-income

Delhi | One 406 147 102
39% 36% 25%
Two or more 100 28 (49 _[23
28% 49% 23%
Mumbai 245 216 179
| |38% 34% 28%
Two or more 33 29
ee 2 21%
Source: Crime Victimization Survey, CHRI, 2015

Table 2.6 Composition of assault crimes

Delhi Mumbai
No. of households surveyed | 4990 6036
No. of households affected by |51 98
assault
% of households affected by | 1.02% 1.62%
assault
Composition of assault crimes |
Grabbed/shoved/slapped/beat | 63.93% 88.52%
Attack by throwing rocks/ 4.92%
bottles
Attack with a gunoraknife | 3.28% 3.28%
Attack with any other 1.64%
dangerous object
Attack in any other way 24.59% 1.64%
Source: Crime Victimization Survey, CHRI, 2015

four-fifths of those in Mumbai involved grabbing, shoving, slapping, or beating.

The categories of attacks with dangerous objects, including guns and knives,
accounted for just over 11% of cases in Delhi and just under 10% in Mumbai
(Table 2.6). However, whereas 6 in 10 cases of assault in Mumbai involved a sole
assailant, 7 in 10 cases in Delhi had multiple perpetrators.
The two cities somewhat differed in terms of time and place of occurrence of
assault cases. 60% of the assault cases in Delhi happened in the 12 PM—6 PM period
and location wise were primarily divided between residential (33%) and open areas/
streets (45%). Incidences of assault in Mumbai, on the other hand, mostly took
place in the open areas (61%) during the day time (6 AM-6 PM accounted for 7 1%)
(Table 2.7).
2 Crime Victimization and Safety Perception Survey: Delhi and Mumbai 25

Table 2.7 Place and time off assault crime cases

P< (Delhi a. we |Mumbai

Pear a ‘12 pm | 6 pm 7 12am | 6 am 12 pm | 6 pm
of |to i. to to by ‘to to to
assault|}6am |12pm|6pm | 12am |Overall\6am |12pm|6pm |12am
Assault ©
Residential [9% 3% |2% ]22% |5% |15%S| 11% [4% [6m [3%
area ) | )
‘Work place 114% |2% | 2% 10% [0% |6% 0% | 6% . a 10%
Commercial | 3% O% |2% 2% 0% 11% 2% 4% 10%
place
Open area 145% |2% 15% [24% 14% 161% 13% 35% |16%
on the
streets

Public 2% 12% |0% 17% 3% 11% |0%

transport
Time 9% 12% |60% |19% 10% |24% {47% |19%
bracket
share in total
assault
Source: Crime Victimization Survey, CHRI, 2015

Sexual Harassment Instances Were Higher in Delhi than in Mumbai

The questions on sexual harassment were framed based on the definition in Section
354A, IPC.
The survey questionnaire posed the following acts as sexual harassment only to
adult women respondents:
Passing of lewd or unwelcome sexual comments;
Continuously stared at in a lewd or threatening manner;
Followed by men till you were scared or uncomfortable;
Touched indecently, groped, pinched; and
Unwanted messages through SMS/e-mail/social media/internet/or telephone calls.
Questions relating to sexual harassment were administered only when a female
adult member of the household was responding to the survey.
 26 D. Srivastava and D. Prasad

Table 2.8 Composition of sexual harassment crime

No. of households surveyed ~ » eS

No. of households affected by sexual harassment
% of households affected by assault
C composition ofsexual harassment crimes
Passed lewd or unwelcome sexual comments 75.94% ss: [56.72%
Continuously stared at in a lewd or threatening 18.72% (20.90%
manner,
Followed by men till you were scared or 3.74% |10.45%
uncomfortable
Touched indecently/groped/pinched [11.94%
Source: Crime Victimization Survey, CHRI, 2015

There were 1700 female respondents in Delhi and 1248 in Mumbai. Of these
households, 75 (over 4%) in Delhi and 39 (over 3%) in Mumbai shared that a female
member of the household was a victim of sexual harassment over the previous year.
Indeed, in Delhi 1 in 11 cases of all crime incidents were sexual harassment,
compared to | in 25 in Mumbai. Of sexual harassment cases, 94% in Delhi fell into
the categories of staring or passing lewd comments. However, almost a quarter of
cases in Mumbai involved either indecent touching or groping, or being followed by
men (Table 2.8). Following theft, sexual harassment of female adult members
emerged as the second most experienced crime in Delhi.

Offender Not Known to the Victim in Most of the Crimes Covered

For assault and criminal intimidation cases in both Delhi and Mumbai, victims rec-
ognized perpetrator(s) by name or sight in just over two-thirds of cases. A signifi-
cant difference can be seen between the two cities, however, when it comes to sexual
harassment cases, While most of the victims of sexual harassment in Delhi knew the
perpetrator by sight, in almost 9 out of 10 cases in Mumbai, the victim did not know
the perpetrator. Most cases of sexual harassment in Mumbai took place on public
transport or commercial places.'* These two trends together suggest that many per-
petrators take advantage of a perceived anonymity of public spaces to harass women.
This also gives guidance for the police response—in Mumbai, the police can step up
its presence and patrolling in the areas that are prone to cases of sexual harassment;
in Delhi, where perpetrators are largely known to victims, the police can work in
partnership with NGOs to reach both victim and perpetrators and devise the appro-
priate strategies (Table 2.9).

'’The lack of a similar trend in Delhi could be tied to the fact that many
individuals reported that
they avoided public transport and felt unsafe earlier in the evening more so than respondents
in
Mumbai (see Section III).
 2 Crime Victimization and Safety Perception Survey: Delhi and Mumbai 27

Table 2.9 Cases where offenders were known to victim

Cases of | At least one At least one Did not know | Did not see the
Crime category
|crime _| knoby
wn name |known
by sigh
|offender
t offender
No.s / % of cases of crime*
Delhi
Assault ‘SI | 35.3% | 33.3% | 35.3% 13.7%
Sexual 80 1.25% 60% 38.8% 1.3%
Harassment =| )
Criminal 17 47.1% 141.2% 111.8% 11.8%
Intimidation | ~ ate | |
Mumbai ig ae
Assault [101 | 27.7% == [31.7% _|35.6% _
Sexual 45 |. 2.2% |11.1% |86.7%
Harassment | 12 | L
Criminal 31 | 35.5% [29.0% 32.3%
[ntimidation | )
—— aoe i. = — —_ —

Source: Crime Victimization Survey, CHRI, 2015

*May exceed 100% in case of multiple perpetrators with differing identification status

Demographic Profile of Affected Households

High-Income Households Less Affected by Crime Compared

to Low-Income Households

Overall, the survey shows that high-income households are less affected by crime
compared to low-income households (Table 2.10). In Mumbai, the percentage of
households affected by crime gradually decreased while moving up the income lad-
der. Though high-income households in Delhi were somewhat less affected by
crime than the other two income categories, the percentage of crime-affected house-
holds was comparable between mid- and low-income brackets.

Experience of Crime Comparable across Religion, Caste, Mother Tongue,

and Period of Stay in City

Of the households surveyed in both cities, over 85% were Hindu and 7—8.5% were
Muslim. The rates of crime victimization among these groups were comparable.'®
Similarly, the rate of crime victimization for the SC/ST community (constituting
14% of sample in Delhi and 12% in Mumbai) was also comparable to non-SC/ST
households in both cities. We asked respondents whether they had been living in the
city for less than 5 years, to see whether recent migrants were affected by crime

'9 As stated in the methodology, sample sizes below that used to determine a representative size at
the city or police zone levels must be treated with caution, and not used to make generalizations.
This analysis is shown for comparative purposes within our survey and to demonstrate potential
findings of a large-scale survey.
 28 D. Srivastava and D. Prasad

Table 2.10 Percentage of sample households affected by crime across income classes
‘Income | Sample households in | Households |% of sample households
City _| class _ each income class affected by crime _|affected by crime
Delhi [Low, [1013 Seem (2S :
‘Medium | 1003 | 248 ~_ |24.73%
High | 1019 tt whee liste
uahdlles.. (Ulda. ae eT Toee
Medium | 1243 [317 [25.5%
High | 1201 [239 119.9%
Source: Crime Victimization Survey, CHRI, 2015

differently than long-term residents. However, recent migrants constituted a very

small portion of the sample: 7% in Delhi and 2% in Mumbai. Based on this data,
there was no notable difference between the two groups.
Yet, those who do not speak the primary language of the city they live in seem to
be more vulnerable to crime, particularly when it comes to non-Hindi speakers in
Delhi. One must be cautious in drawing conclusions from a small sample size, yet
it stands to reason those migrants who struggle to communicate in the local lan-
guage would be at a relatively greater risk of crime as a result of their lack of knowl-
edge of the city, and difficulty communicating due to language barriers (Table 2.11).

Crime Reporting and Police Response

Low and Inconsistent Rate of Reporting Crimes to the Police

Overall, less than 50% of the households who experienced crime in both cities
reported it to the police, with Mumbai showing lower reporting at 41.8% than Delhi
at 46.8%. There is, however, significant variation across crime categories in terms
of rate of reporting:
Un-natural death and missing persons cases have a high reporting rate at 75%
and 100%, respectively, in both cities;
* Reporting of assault and criminal intimidation was higher in Delhi at nearly 55%
and 47% as compared to 25% and 22%, respectively, in Mumbai whereas report-
ing of house break-in was higher in Mumbai at 60% as compared to Delhi at 35%;
Reporting of sexual harassment was higher in Mumbai at 11% as compared to
7.5% in Delhi (Table 2,12),?°

0 Please note that the offence of sexual harassment (Section 354A)

was added to the Indian Penal
Code only in 2013 by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013. Befor
e this, Section 354 punished
outraging the modesty of a woman,” which applied only to routine incidents
of molestation.
 2 Crime Victimization and Safety Perception Survey: Delhi and Mumbai 29

Table 2.11 Impact of demographic characteristics on victimization and reporting behaviour

) ) Sample
City sample | Sample crime | crime-affected
household | 'Households in each | victim households
City a size _| Religion/ _income class ' households reporting crime
| |caste/period | | % of city— % of crime
| |of stay/mother | _ sample % of sample | victim
No. ‘tongue 'No. | household j|household |households
Religion { -_
Fe a = 1 J
Delhi |4990 Hindu ae |438 L | 87.80% 13.10% 44.43%
| \Muslim 348 |6.97% _| 13.22% 36.96%
| _Christian 43 | 0.86% 4.65% 50.00%
Sikh an +
4.25% 10.85% 47.83%
0.12% 33.33%
Mumbai |6036 Hinds shina 15.22% 42.44%
15.96% 43.37%
25.00% 25.00%
san [sePosse 18.75% 66.67%

Caste
11.39% 33.33%

13.01%
12.73% 37.36%
Mumbai |6036 15.49% 42.70%
14.42% 39.05%
Period of stay in city
9.80% 50.00%
14.19% 22.73%
13.06%
Mumbai 6036 18.64%
45years [84 |1.39% (19.05% 37.50%

Mother tongue
15.27% 42.56%

Delhi Hinds
[4732 [9489% | 12.9%
21.71% 42.86%
Mumbai Mahi [2800 [4753 |4.58 43.10%
16454 41.65%
find [20 sro 16778 41.15%
15.38% 38.36%
Source: Crime Victimization Survey, CHRI, 2015
 D. Srivastava and D. Prasad
30

Table 2.12 Households reporting crimes to police

r ———— haa T Households reporting crimes
Cases of crime experienced | to police
Crime ‘No = ating ~ | No. % of cases of crime
City
Delhi Theft 650 _ -: : 4 eles: 51.70%
Assault (|51 28 54.90%
House Break-in 51 18 35.30%

Sexual Harassment 80 6 7.50%

Criminal Intimidation | 17 8 47.10%
Un-natural Death 4 3 75.00%

Gera. (to ee i
46.80%
43.80%
Mumbai 874
101 25.70%
‘House Breakin 40
[66 | 60.60%
45 11.10%
31 22.60%
[Un-natural Death [12 | 75.00%
100.00%
1132 473 41.80%
Source: Crime Victimization Survey, CHRI, 2015

Table 2.13 Cases of theft reported to the police

Crime
w) ©. n=
Total cases in
Mumbai
Total cases in
subcategory sample Reported to police | sample Reported to police
No. |% of sample | No. No. |% of sample
cases cases
Luggage 103 47 145.63% 2g Ba 134.19%
Walle/Purse [5927 [45.76% 16152. |32.30%
CredivDebitcard|6 «4 (66.67% (23 =| 12_|52.17%
Jewellery x EC rc Ce
Cellphone [246 «| 119|48.37% «(328 ——| 156|47.56%
TV aeee
Laptop
Cash 9844 44.90% 6138.1 57.38%
Car CA CS CTO CH FE
Source: Crime Victimization Survey, CHRI, 2015

There is further variation within the sub-categories of each crime. Among theft
cases, for example, in both cities less than half of the incidents of cell phone and
luggage theft were reported to the police. Theft of high value items like jewellery,
computers or laptops, and cars resulted in a higher rate of reporting to the police.
This may be due to the utilitarian concern that claiming insurance for these items
often requires showing a copy of the FIR registered by police, as in the case of
insurance claims for vehicle theft (Table 2.13).
2 Crime Victimization and Safety Perception Survey: Delhi and Mumbai 31

Table 2.14 Cases of sexual harassment reported to police

Delhi =S—s~*~s~SCSss Mumba

Total cases in | |Total cases in |
Crime sub-category* sample Reported | sample Reported
ecinaicbiienadeaetcmeeet
__|No. | |No.|%
Passed lewd or unwelcome sexual 22 5 122.73%
comments
Continuously stared at in a lewd or
threatening manner
10 (0 (0.00%
'
——_-——

Followed by men till you were 20.00% |5 0 |0.00%

scared or uncomfortable
Touched indecently/groped/ 3 33.33% 0.00%

Total
pinched
Ea Cc
Source: Crime Victimization Survey, CHRI, 2015
“The survey also included a sub-category on receiving inappropriate or unwanted phone calls or
text messages, but in this survey no respondents selected that option as an answer

In stark contrast, even serious cases of sexual harassment involving being

touched or groped or being followed were not reported in most of the cases in both
cities (Table 2.14).
Unreported crime amounts to crime that remains unaddressed and unresolved. A
major benefit of public crime surveys is that they provide a reliable measure of the
volume of crime experienced, but unreported, along with important markers of the
types of crimes that usually go unreported, profile of such victims, characteristics of
such crimes, and reasons for not reporting. Proactive police departments can use
this information to initiate crime prevention and targeted community policing
programmes. |

(continued)
 32 1D. Srivastava and D. Prasad

In fact, a national public survey carried out in 2018 across India found that
socio-economic profiles have a significant bearing on people’s experience
with the police.*! For instance, the survey found that higher income groups,
and those with higher education such as college educated and above, were
twice more likely to seek the police’s help, than the poor and people who are
not literate.” Among vulnerable sections, it found that Muslims reported a
higher rate of contact with the police than Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes
and Other Backward Classes.”* At the same time, it also noted an important
variation: that while higher income groups are more likely to contact the
police for loss of goods or documents, the poor were more likely to report
complaints of domestic violence and family disputes.
Measuring such differences can be tremendously helpful in understanding
and addressing gaps found in the relationship between the police and different
sections of society through targeted reform measures in police administration,
training, supervision, accountability, as well as in informing trust building
exercises with communities as required.

Victims of Crime Are Reluctant to Engage with the Criminal Justice System

For respondents, the primary reason for not reporting crimes centred on the fear of
being caught in complex or bureaucratic police and court systems (Table 2.15).
People also often reported that they felt that there was little evidence of the crime.
or that the police would not be able to do anything about the incident. A significant
number said they did not report the crime for fear of retaliation.
Responses reveal that many victims envision reporting to the police, and possibly
proceeding with a criminal case, as daunting and burdensome. They also perceive
little gain in going to the police, as they believe there is little evidence and the police
will not be able to take steps to hold perpetrators accountable.
While these trends stay consistent across crime categories, particular reasons for
not reporting are more emphasized in some kinds of crime. For example, of the 80
households in Delhi that experienced sexual harassment, 74 of them did not go to
the police. Of these, 52 said they did not want to get stuck in police or court matters
.
In Mumbai, there were 45 cases of sexual harassment, 40 of which went unreported.
Twenty-six said they did not report out of fear of retaliation.
Particularly in cases of sexual harassment, the data clearly indicate exceedingl
y
low levels of reporting while incidence is relatively high in both cities. The reason
s

Common Cause and Lokniti—Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (2018)
* Ibid. pg.35.
-Thid., pg.36.
 2 Crime Victimization and Safety Perception Survey: Delhi and Mumbai 33

Table 2.15 Reasons cited for not reporting crime (as a percentage of total unreported cases)"
City Delhi Mumbai
Number of |As % of crime |Number of |As % of crime
= ane ial hn cases not reported cases not reported
No. of crimes not reported “1454— : Pe a ee ey : |
Fear of retaliation —- 38 8% 100 15%
Lack of evidence eae 7 33% ~ 1438 21%
Didn't know where to report 24 5% |23 3%
Didn’t know any of the helpline 8 (2% | 19 |1%
numbers | |
Did not thinkthe police would |88 119% =F ~ 169 7" | 10%
entertain your complaint _ | I Seaae Seer Se
Did not think the police would be | 67_ 15% 112 17%
ableto do anything about the case| )
Family matters do not need to be BS. ; oe
‘reported—
Did not want to get stuck
in
police/court matters
Scaredto go to the police station
Source: Crime Victimization Suiiiey. CHRI, 2015
“Sum exceeds 100% as respondents could select multiple options

for low reporting cited above immediately signal the need for further targeted study.
To be sure, visible and active efforts must be made by the police, strengthened by
partnering with NGOs, to hold mass awareness programmes to educate women that
sexual harassment is now a crime they can complain of, the process to make a com-
plaint, and assure them of their safety in this process.
To increase women’s confidence to report these cases, it may also be beneficial to
formalize the role of NGOs in providing public education as well as training police
in gender sensitization so that they can respond to reported cases of sexual harass-
ment appropriately. Government can make it mandatory for all modes of public
transport—autos, taxis, buses, trains/metro—to prominently display the numbers of
the police control room and women’s helpline number(s). Acting on women’s safety
requires a response to low reporting. The detailed reasons for the gap between the
experience of sexual harassment and reporting must be identified first (Table 2.16).

Less than Half of the Cases Reported to the Police Were Registered

Taking all crimes together, in both cities less than half of the cases reported to the
police by the respondents had their complaint registered as a First Information
Report (FIR). Given that only half of all crimes experienced were reported in the
first place, this means only a quarter of crimes experienced were registered.
 34 D. Srivastava and D. Prasad

Table 2.16 Reasons cited for not reporting crime, according to crime category (as a percentage)
< “ r a | esis } | Did not think the |Did not think the
Did not want to get police would police would be
stuck in police/ Lack of entertain your _| able to do anything
court matters evidence complaint about the case
Crime category [Delhi |Mumbai|Delhi| Mumbai |Delhi |Mumbai| Delhi |Mumbai
Theft 65% 69% 85% 54% |71%
Assault 6% 12% 1% 18% |12%
House Break-in | 3% 71% 11% 10% |5%
Sexual 24% 6% 2% 13% |6%
Harassment
Criminal 1% 4% 1% 4% 5%
Intimidation
Un-natural Death
Missing Persons 0% 0%
|Z
|0%
0%
0%
1%
|0%
Source: Crime Victimization Survey, CHRI, 2015

In terms of sexual harassment, none of the six cases reported in Delhi™ and only
two of the five cases in Mumbai led to an FIR being filed. This is particularly con-
cerning in light of the fact that only 7.5% of households in Delhi and 11.1% of those
in Mumbai who had faced sexual harassment reported the incident to the police.
As Table 2.17 below shows, half or less of households who reported thefts,
assaults, or break-ins answered that FIRs were filed in their cases. Only in cases of
un-natural death was FIR registration consistently high; however, none of the miss-
ing persons cases in Mumbai were registered.”
Within sub-categories of crime, there are also differences in the proportion of
reported cases that had FIRs registered. For instance, FIRs were filed for 37% of
reported cell phone thefts in Delhi and 45% of those in Mumbai.
Cases of car theft had a relatively better rate of FIR registration, probably due to
insurance requirements.” Reports of theft of other high value items like computer
or laptop and jewellery also were more likely to be registered. Notably, the types of
theft showing a high rate of FIR registration in general were also more commonly
reported in the first place (Table 2.18).
Police failure and refusal to register reported cognizable offences violate the
procedure established under Indian law. Section 154 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure that governs the registration of crimes makes it mandatory on the police

In Delhi, this low rate of FIR registration in sexual harassment cases also
casts doubt on the
purported success of initiatives like Operation Shistachar (Express News
Service, 2015) by the
Delhi Police. The high number of individuals detained under this operation is also
worrying.
*This may be because no cognizable offence was made out.
Because of the high number of car thefts in Delhi, the Delhi Police
encourages and facilitates
electronic filing of FIRs in these cases.
 2 Crime Victimization and Safety Perception Survey: Delhi and Mumbai 35

Table 2.17 FIR registered—number and as a percentage of crimes reported to police

FIR Registered
Crime Crimes reported % of crime
City | Crime category ___|cases_ | to police __|No. | reported
Delhi | Overall ae 854 400 }195| 48.75%
Mumbai | Overall [1132 «473, s*«d: 29 | BH
Dehi |Thft jj [650 |336 1169} 50.30%
Lo ae Ce | ee
\HouseBreak-in {S118 — [9 | 50.00%
|Sexual Harassment ee) |6 | 0 | 0.00% —
Criminal Intimidation 117 8 I 12.50%
Un-natural Death [43 100.00% :
Missing Persons 1 ‘1 |100.00%
Mumbai | Theft 874 383 48.83%
Assault
46.15%
19 | 47.50%
Sexual Harassment 45 40.00%
Criminal Intimidation | 31 2 | 28.57%

Source: Crime Victimization Survey, CHRI, 2015

Table 2.18 FIR registered in cases of theft—number and as a percentage of theft cases reported
to police

Debi «Mumbai FIR registered

No. of cases yt Bahar No. of cases us % of cases
Item stolen reported to police |No.|reported | reported to police | No. |reported
Luggage shining ehihcsh®O Oasis bau anced xsyslO3: 192:75%
Wallet/Purse 24 |46.15%
CredivDebitcard |4 | (25.00% 12S 41.67%
Jewellery 38.24%
Cell phone i944 [36.97% [156 | 70.*| 44.87%
Computer/Laptop |16 | 10 |62.50% |7 (| 85.71%
Cash A 2 473% [35d 211 60.00%
Car Ca 20 CES FE!
Source: Crime Victimization Survey, CHRI, 2015

to register complaints, or information they receive, alleging the commission of a

cognizable offence in the form of a First Information Report. The Supreme Court in
a landmark judgement delivered in 2014 has further reiterated this mandatory duty
of the police.’’ In this judgement, the apex Court asserted that under Section 154,
CrPC, the police is duty bound to register an FIR so long as the information

27Lalita Kumari versus Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, AIR 2014 SC 187.
36 D. Srivastava and D. Prasad

discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and cannot question the credibil-
ity or reasonableness of the information received. At this stage, the police are not
empowered to carry out any inquiry, commonly referred to as preliminary inquiry,
to ascertain whether the information received is genuine or not, except for a very
limited category of cases. In case the police refuse to register a case, they violate
their legal duty.

Anyone aggrieved by police refusal to register their complaint as an FIR can

either send a written complaint to the district Superintendent of Police (police
officer in charge of the district) who can order the officer-in-charge of the
concerned police station to register the FIR where the information discloses
the commission of a cognizable offence.** An aggrieved person may also
approach the Judicial Magistrate with a complaint seeking an order to the
police to register the FIR and begin investigation. In addition to these legal
remedies, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013 inserted another impor-
tant remedy, which was codified as Section 166A(c) of the Indian Penal
Code.’ This section makes the failure to register an FIR under Section 154 of
the CrPC for specified sexual offences (rape, assault, trafficking and acid
throwing related offences) as a punishable offence in itself with up to 2 years
prison term and a fine. With this, a complaint can be filed against the police
officer for refusing to register a complaint of the specified sexual offences.*

Despite the clear legal requirement, non-registration of reported crimes remains

widely prevalent in India. The 2018 national survey on the state of policing in India
referenced above found that 24 per cent of those who approached the police to reg-
ister a complaint were unable to do so.*! Crime reported, but not registered by the
police, will fail to be investigated and thereby remains unaddressed. As official crime
data collate only those cases that the police register and allow to enter the system,
public surveys are a crucial, and potentially the sole, source of information for mea-
suring the extent of non-registration. Additionally, once again, they also reveal sig-
nificant patterns such as the demographic profile of those most affected, different
reasons/factors put forward by the police in refusing to register, and the different
forms of harassment meted out to complainants. The 2018 survey for instance threw
up that those in rural areas are relatively more likely to report success in filing com-
plaint/FIR than those in urban areas. It also revealed that the police persuading the

** Section 154(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Section 156 (3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
For more information on legal remedies available in instances of police failure to register com-
plaints alleging sexual offences, see the booklet titled Police Registration of Sexual Offences: A
Guide on Procedures and Holding Police Accountable, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
and Association for Advocacy and Legal Initiatives (2020).
*'Common Cause and Lokniti—Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (2018)
 2 Crime Victimization and Safety Perception Survey: Delhi and Mumbai 37

complainant to resolve the matter or arrive at a compromise is a major reason behind

their failure to register. Proactive police departments can use this data to review fac-
tors that explain the differences as well as the gaps found in police behaviour.

Only Half of Those Who Reported Crime to the Police Were Satisfied
with the Police Response

For those households who reported crime, roughly 36% in Delhi and 51% in
Mumbai said they were satisfied with the police response (Table 2.19). Satisfaction
varies across the subcategories of crime in both cities. Notably, satisfaction was the
lowest for sexual harassment cases in Delhi whereas in Mumbai, house break-in
cases recorded the lowest satisfaction.
The reasons for dissatisfaction mainly included delay and/or refusal to register
an FIR, rude behaviour while registering an FIR, and attempting to dissuade the
complainant from filing an FIR. On sexual harassment, at least 60% of respondents
both in Delhi and in Mumbai attributed their dissatisfaction with the police to refusal
to register FIR (Table 2.20). Among those who said they were dissatisfied with the
police response, most answered that this was on account of delay and/or refusal to
register an FIR, rude behaviour while registering an FIR, and attempting to dissuade
the complainant from filing an FIR.

Table 2.19 Satisfaction with police response

Satisfied with police
response
City Crime category Crimes reported |Count %o
Delhi [Overall
[854 400 36.25% 148
Mumbai 51.16% 242
Delhi 37.20% 125
42.86%
House Breakin [5184 22.22%
Sexual Harassment [80
[6 | 16.67%
Criminal Intimidation |17 25.00%
Un-natural Death ‘1
amnatite
2). 1 138.93%
Missing Persons lil i 1. EE Mas | 0.00%
eax 52.22%
>gE - —_—5 57.69%
House Break-in [66 35.00%
Sexual Harassment [45 0 2 40.00%
Criminal Intimidation xw 1 DF ITRI®
Sioa,
‘Un-natural Death {12 4 44.44%
Missing Persons = |30— 2 66.67%
Source: Crime Victimization Survey, CHRI, 2015
38 D. Srivastava and D. Prasad

Table 2.20 Reasons cited for dissatisfaction—as a percentage of those dissatisfied with police
response — —y-

ei pit. cut Putme |

/ at fault |
| and tried |
to Took a |PCR
Refused |persuade long van Did not
to me not | Asked | time to | took an |help
Crimes |Rude/ | register | to for a register |hour or | injured
Crime reported |impolite |FIR register | bribe FIR more persons
City category | No.s % of crime reported
Delhi |Overall 27.84% 5.49% |3.53%
24.64% 5.21% |4.27%
rAss [16 [31.25%
ault [25% |0% 6.25% |0%0%
House 14 50% |57.14%

me
Harass-

“Sie
Criminal 33.33% |33.33% |50% 0% 33.33% |0% 0%

tion

ral Death

Persons

Mumbai 231 16.02%

183 21.31% |20.22%
9.09% _|0%
House 26 19.23% | 38.46% bats 34.62% |3.85% |0%
Break-in
3

Criminal 2 50% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Intimida-
tion
Un-natu- | 5 20% 20% 0% 60% 0% 0%
ral Death
Missing
Persons
Source: Crime Victimization Survey, CHRI, 2015

Even out of those who said they were satisfied, overall, with how the police
responded, comparatively few*? answered that the reasons for their satisfaction
included that the police: “explained the action they will take”; “arrived without
delay”; and “acted fast” (Table 2.21).

* Respondents were able to choose more than one reason for why they were satisfied by the police
response. Therefore, these numbers are not lower simply because respondents chose other reasons.
2 Crime Victimization and Safety Perception Survey: Delhi and Mumbai 39

poroy--4sey
L9|
ieee Hb)
60! —%0007)
0007)
were] HOC000) moo'st|
%00'0
99 %001|
%0| HOS i: VI)
|
jou Aejap
|
| = =
PoALUy

EEE —-%H106I ILS

HEE
ele]
%8°0 %0|%0l
+ oo%6001| HSI
EL %0 %0 HOS]
| 8k a” %0
%00'0S
|
|
poureydxy
uonoeAouy [iM
au)

6001
sarod asuodsas

LGB]wy9|MEE'ee
ee 69 SITHEEMPVLS|
yey

%0 %0 %0| %0T0;

#001]
LT EE

%0|
-|
juTe|duIOSnow

OL
won|
|

——|
YIM oy)

|METTE|
SelmeeeI|5
HOT9|
EL, %OS| % a %0| ec]
poysnes

~o| OS 20S|
ee HS ~—HHTLS|
LI9v|
—ssi‘édwéO|CMHOT|C“‘“C‘SS
09
posojsidoy
jureydui0s
Apjoausoo

| 5.
AW

«ss
Jo dsoy)

LOG]
80S)
oseyUIOI0d

%6L'ES|
HOWs| HOL'BH| ee
%0 BH ol
%EO'ISJn cae
Aynyoueo
pouaisi]

|
|

—_ |
—«-WEL'ES—-%9BCO|
HOOP]
LOS] — ae
SO] as -%Or
Soe 2| sy&

| StI] an Pe |
Joquiny
poysnes

=
“Aoaing ‘THHOS107

Si
Ee
I

sot] © F.
eeeeS

ey
|
i

vonezrunoi,

ano
AsOSOIe

wpeaq
jesnyeu-uy)
OULD)

:20In0g auILID

PG
AND
 D. Srivastava and D. Prasad
40

ed without
There were also few respondents who answered that the police arriv
cases; for
delay or acted fast. Such reasons may not have been applicable to all
occurred
example, those who reported crime at a police station after the crime
er,
would not be expected to answer that the police arrived without delay. Howev
per-
these responses could also reflect issues on the ground, such as lack of police
sonnel and PCR vans. This is yet another instance where data help identify the ques-
tions that need to be answered, rather than providing an answer to all questions.

Perceptions of Safety

Residents of Mumbai Perceive the Police More Positively than

Delhi Residents

More than two-thirds of those in Mumbai answered that they perceive the police in a
positive light, though just under half of Delhi respondents did (Table 2.22). In both
cities, the perception is consistent across income levels without any significant varia-
tion (Table 2.23). It should also be noted that just over a fifth of respondents in both
cities answered that they viewed the police in neither a positive nor negative light.

Respondents Most Feared Falling Victim to Theft, Assault, or

Sexual Harassment

Fear of theft seems universal across the two cities. Fewer people are fearful of
assault and un-natural death in Delhi compared to Mumbai.

Table 2.22 Overall perception on local police (% of final sample households)

Total households Very negative

3085 32% 3%
3659 13% 1%
Source: Crime Victimization Survey, CHRI, 2015

Table 2.23 Satisfaction with police—by income class

Very negative
Delhi 36%
[Medium [1% ‘(4% (21% [35%
Mumbai
High (2% 25%
Medium [20% [47% [20% [10%
High —(20%@ 17%
Source: Crime Victimization Survey, CHRI, 2015
 2 Crime Victimization and Safety Perception Survey: Delhi and Mumbai 4]

Table 2.24 Crimes people fear most of falling victim to (% of sample respondents)’
Ae Theft Assault Un-natural death Sexual crime Criminal intimidation
Delhi 86% | 16% 5% 17% 2%
Mumbai 717% | 26% 13% 4% 3%
Source: Crime Victimization Survey, CHRI, 2015
‘Respondents could choose more than one option. As such, the sum of these percentages
exceeds 100%

Around a quarter of the Mumbai respondents listed assault as their second stron-
gest fear. This is possibly shaped by actual experiences. Around 6% of sample
households in Delhi experienced assault in the previous year, in Mumbai, the pro-
portion was higher at roughly 10%. Public perceptions of safety, inevitably influ-
enced by media reporting and other information in the public domain, also play a
role in shaping individual fears. This is most evident in Delhi, where 17% of house-
holds answered that they were worried about sexual harassment.
Delhi’s actual experience of sexual harassment was roughly one percentage point
higher than that in Mumbai (Table 2.24). However, given Delhi’s long-standing
reputation as unsafe for women, the aftermath of the Jyoti Singh Pandey gangrape
case in 2012 and the resulting heightened coverage of women’s safety issues, the
fear of sexual crime has likely become much more acute in Delhi.

Households in Delhi Begin Feeling Unsafe, Even in Their Own

Neighbourhoods, Earlier in the Evening than Those in Mumbai

Respondents in Mumbai felt considerably less fearful of crime in their neighbour-

hoods relative to respondents in Delhi, though the safety perception among those in
Mumbai was only marginally better than Delhiites. One possible reason is that, as
shown above, around half of crimes in Delhi were committed in and around residen-
tial areas, whereas the rate of crime in residential areas in Mumbai was significantly
lower, at 30%. In both cities, the vast majority of households reported feeling safe
in their neighbourhoods during the daytime. Female respondents felt as safe as their
male counterparts in their neighbourhood during daytime in both the cities.
When it comes to travelling beyond the immediate neighbourhood, there is a
clear difference in safety perception based on gender. Whereas only 7% of respon-
dents would be worried for a lone male member staying away from home beyond
8 pm in Delhi, 52% would worry for a lone female member of the household at the
same hour of the night (Tables 2.25, 2.26, and 2.27).

Travel at Night Is Considered More Unsafe in Delhi than in Mumbai

In Delhi, the pattern of heightened safety concerns at night-time extends to the per-
ceived safety of travelling in the evening. 45% of Delhiites (compared to just under
14% in Mumbai) start to worry about their safety while travelling by public trans-
port after 9 pm.
 D. Srivastava and D. Prasad
42

' the neighbourhood during the day

Table 2. 25 Do ‘you feel safe walking around in
‘City TU re | Yesie SS pda ; _|Don’tknow _
~ |Gender |No. of respondents |No. |% No. |% No. |%
Delhi |Male —_| 1335 1147 [85.92% |148 |11.09% |40 |3%
Delhi | Female |1700 [1430 [84.12% [210 |12.35% |60 | 3.53%
Delhi [Overall [3035 «| 2577 [84.91% [358 |11.80% |100 |3.29%
Mumbai |Male | 2410 1950 | 80.91% |204 | 8.46% |256 |10.62%
Mumbai |Female | 1248 1059 |84.86% |110 | 8.81% |79 | 6.33%
Mumbai |Overall |3658 $3009 314 | 8.58% |335
32.06% [314 |9.16%
Source: Crime Victimization Survey, CHRI, 2015

Table 2.26 At what time in the evening would one stop feeling safe walking around alone in
neighbourhood

Delhi
onderfecite_(7PM_|sPM_|9PM1_|10PM_|TNPM
Gender | feel safe
Male ‘geet
7PM |8PM
15%
|i /|9PM e PM isPM Midnight

13%
i a 14%
Mumbai Male|14% 33%
8% 5% 39%
Overall |12% 35%
Source: Crime Victimization Survey, CHRI, 2015

Table 2.27 What time would one start worrying about safety of an adult male/female household
member who is out alone at night

att After | After After After

PM |9PM /|10PM ae
|11 —
Male Member
6% | 24% oS vo
of household
9% [208
Female pet ate 31% | 32% a 2% «| 0%
Member of 29% 8%
household
Source: Crime Victimization Survey, CHRI, 2015

Similarly, whereas 22% of respondents in Mumbai would feel unsafe using their
own transportation to move around the city beyond 10 PM, the ratio jumps to 68%
in Delhi. However, a significant gender difference regarding safety perception for
travel at night did not emerge (Tables 2.28 and 2.29).
 2 Crime Victimization and Safety Perception Survey: Delhi and Mumbai 43

Table 2.28 At what time in the evening would one stop feeling safe travelling in public transport?
After | After After |After After After Would not
City | Gender 7 PM 8 PM | |9 PM /10PM /11PM Midnight WoOIry
Delhi [Male [2% |13% | 32% trom 19% 11% 1%
Female|2% [18% [24% [33% |22% |1% 0%
‘Overall |2% [16% [27% [33% [21% |1% 1%
Mumbai|Male [5% [2% | 7% |19% 133% |23% 11%
[Female|3% |4% —|9% (22% —*([41% —_—*|17% 4%
Overai|4% [3% |7% [20% [36% [21% (9%
Source: Crime Victimization Survey, CHRI, 2015

Table 2.29 At what time in the evening would one stop feeling safe while travelling in personal
transport?”
a
| Always After | After After | After After After
City |Gender | feel safe 7PM {8PM 9 PM 10 PM 11 PM midnight
Delhi |Male [3% [2% [6% |16% [39% [33% (3%
[Female|2% [2% (6% 117% (48% |22% 12%
Overall |2% 2% 7 = 44% |27% |3%
Mumbai |Male s: 1% 31% 19%
Fema 35% (15%
32% [17%
"Note: 67% (52%) ofener households in Delhi (Mumbai) owned two wheelers at the time
of survey. Car ownership was 31% (15%) among Delhi (Mumbai) respondent households.
However, the question was asked to all respondents irrespective of whether they owned a vehicle
Source: Crime Victimization Survey, CHRI, 2015

4 Learning and Way Forward

Public crime victimization surveys provide information on crime and safety con-
cerns in society that is crucial for effective policy and operational responses. They
are the medium by which the experiences and perceptions of the public can be col-
lated, analysed, and examined to inform policy and state responses to crime and
public safety. Importantly, the data amassed can only be gathered through these
surveys; the existing collation and reporting of data and statistics overseen by the
National Crime Records Bureau cannot capture these crucial data points. Regular
crime victimization surveys would be a necessary, and immensely valuable, coun-
terpart to the existing official statistics.
To begin with, such surveys generate data that enable police departments and
governments to know the real incidence of crime experienced by members of the
public. A singularly unique aspect of such surveys, as exemplified by this pilot ini-
tiative, is their ability to identify the proportion of crime experienced that goes
 D. Srivastava and D. Prasad
44

unreported. For CHRI, unearthing this data was a major motivation for conducting
the survey. This survey itself shows a rate of unreported crime of over 50% in both
Delhi and Mumbai. There is no other method by which the government could gather
information on such crimes. Should this finding be borne out by a larger study, it
would carry serious implications for the scale of response needed from both the
police and government.
Further, even without attempting to generalize the results, this survey points to
important information (as well as areas of future research) on experiences of crime,
the location and timing of crimes, and how crime affects migrants, different income
classes, vulnerable groups and women. Moreover, the survey tells us how the police
initially respond to crime, and how satisfied the public is with this response; all
based on the direct opinions and/or lived experiences of ordinary households.
General safety perceptions also show how safe, or unsafe, the public feels—a mea-
sure that will not be revealed without a survey. All this helps understand the nature
of crime better, and allows police and policymakers to implement crime reduction
strategies and policies where they can make the most impact. As crime reduction
strategies become more focused and targeted, a natural progression would be to
evaluate police performance against these; such a step would help address the cur-
rent lack of systems or processes for regular police performance evaluation.
Crime surveys will be most effective when carried out regularly, at fixed intervals
(preferably annually), and across the full jurisdiction of any police organization.
Year on year tracking will throw up patterns in the changing nature of crime, experi-
ences of crime, and relating to victims. Similarly, tracking the levels of reporting to
the police will provide a consistent measure of the level of public confidence in the
legal system in general, and in the police specifically. The information gathered can
help assess the extent to which crime reduction strategies are working on the ground,
and help shape suitable corrective measures.
A dilemma faced was deciding the crimes to be covered in the survey. Being the
first survey of this scale, the consensus was to stick to crimes commonly reported to
and registered by the police to allow comparison with official crime statistics. While
it would be important to ensure a core set of crime categories are included in every
survey, to track year-on-year trends, a crime victimization survey can contain a
special section which varies in topic every year depending on the need of the time.
There can also be micro-surveys for specific communities and/or specific crimes
conducted separately. For instance, sexual offences against women require dedi-
cated attention and will benefit from targeted surveys. Like in other jurisdictions
where crime victimization surveys are carried out regularly, specialized question-
naires along with specially trained teams are needed to assess the extent, and nature
of sexual offences against women. Similarly, finding ways to focus on crimes
against other vulnerable groups including religious minorities, Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, and children will provide the insights necessary for developing
targeted strategies and responses in these crucial areas.
The utility of crime victimization surveys ultimately depends to a great extent on
the accuracy and sensitivity with which they are administered. This presented a big
challenge both for a non-governmental organization like CHRI, and for the survey
2 Crime Victimization and Safety Perception Survey: Delhi and Mumbai 45

agency. Unfamiliarity with the core areas—crime and policing—created hesitation

among the field surveyors, even for those with years of experience in administering
survey interviews. We realized the importance of conducting training well before
the scheduled survey to allow sufficient time for the team to get familiar with legal
terminology. It would be valuable to have volunteers with law backgrounds, either
students or young researchers, be part of the teams administering this survey. Aside
from legal knowledge, special attention is needed to equip the interviewers with
communication skills to deal with people’s anxieties over sharing details about their
victimization or their experience with the police. A careful balance is necessary to
capture details of the crime while at the same time being mindful of any discomfort
or pain it may evoke.
Given the required scale, periodicity and their technical nature, crime victimiza-
tion surveys are a massive undertaking. In India, they are best done at the state level
and in partnership between the government, academic institutions, and experts.
Committing dedicated funds from the annual state budgets will help institutionalize
the surveys and ensure they can be done at regular intervals (preferably annually).
Conducting a regular public crime survey would make vital data on crime and
public safety available. For a country as diverse as India, and in which the criminal
justice system is not always trusted by the public, a regular survey would not only
provide unprecedented data, but over time, and with concerted efforts by govern-
ment and criminal justice actors like the police, could be a mechanism that strength-
ens public trust in the police, and the justice system more largely.
 D. Srivastava and D. Prasad
46

Survey Questionnaire (English and Hindi)

Project Vishwas Setu

Crime Victimization and Safety Perception Survey

f ss Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

1 New Delhi, India. London, UK. Accra, Ghana
‘. ¥ NGO in Special Consultative Status with the Economic & Social Council of the United Nations
Project Vishwas Setu
Crime victimization and safety perce tion surve

Te
Brief Introduction: Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) in collaboration with Indicus Analytics (A
Nielson Company)is conducting a crime victimisation survey in Delhi and Mumbai. In this survey we are collecting
data on personal and household experience of crime and major public safety concerns across localities, income groups
and socio demographics in the these two cities. The survey also seeks to assess personal experience of reporting of
crimes to law enforcement agencies and satisfaction levels. The findings will be published in the form of a report and
circulated widely to the Central and State sooner police, media and aSele
civil ager
sftoa warfatea Aer orh) & wear o errta ap uscce sfaftrefea (errvas Fag A vH soa
meang)
feech sik
wees wa oe Vet 8) Sa wd A ee SH ed MD fata Heat 4, fata ora ot ve UPafre GEN S ERI sous afer Va
Bel Ta SR A GAT Yee B Aaa Ser aa ae Ww B1 ws OT Has Toit sik Wate S eR & fey soe MH Rafer
& afena aqya a a stood wen sen 2) Ferd we ard @ wo 4 wera fea oe se Ge ae Wea BEN, gers,
Hfsa ak amRe wars & fry arse wo G wReifera fear are)
Thank you for giving your valuable time to answer the questionnaire. We oealso gear for your support.
yeah a ware 24 @ fee ston agqen aaa 24 & fay ararglen aga weram & fey
A sme FI

Name of Interviewer:
(2:
Region/Address: tl ian i ra rN Mi?
Date of Interview: Phone No
DAY/MONTH/YEAR
Type of dwelling: 1=Independent house/bungalow 2=Apartment/flat in a building 3=Slum/jhuggi

AN PENS PPT giSe attes

‘=(in eh ee Annualne renIncome

CWE Chief Wage tongue of
eet wart are @ | Earmer (CWE) Below 3Lacs io Siiiess oe
fren ary aa 3 ara 8 aq] 3-10 are @ Aa
vara 9

- I=Illiterate 9 ge Tg 3=School-S to 9 years, sored autell

Ocean
Se i oe
ee
n
- co College (including a Dietbut
ee
Sell:= sal Tea SSa ee
ch
———
 2 Crime Victimization and Safety Perception Survey: Delhi and Mumbai 47

o Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

New Delhi, India. London, UK. Accra, Ghana
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the Economic & Social Council of the United Nations

8=Supervisory Level 9=Officers/Executives-Junior 10=Officers/Executives-Mid/Senior

grew «oe sient /eAtayfees pF soar /erage Ps / aa
3. Household detailsay a fear

Total no. of No. of Adults Total no. of . of marri i i Caste

Male members (above 18) female embers a (if applicable)
aaenl B) Fea members ante
(18 @ GR)

Religion: |=Hindu, 2=Muslim,3=Christian,4=Sikh, 5=Other

wt 1=B< 2=4fton. a= Bear fag s—fSu, s=ar

3.How = have you lived at your current

¢ address? (in years)
a AoA adtart ca oe feet waa S wed @? (ae 4)

6. Which of the following languages you can speak/read/write.

om ff arasil @ ay ata wad @/oe awd 8 / fra awa 2)
Only Speak=1; Can speak &read, but not write=2;
Speak, Read and write=3
Sra Wa wee B=; Ta wed & oe og wad B afer fre Ae AeA
#2; Wa, 36 oe fora wee 3

7. Is the home you live in your own or rented? Owned

adwehtows mortgage Ownet,
as paying off
fora ay 4 aa wed & ae aaa ao & orfey HI? 7 fat aT } ea ma
ofea qera

8. Hiesechold acces:
Pare ee (
25S safer: fr

en
wl a
Tar yar eha

a ee <a — Wa ie <n —EE

aot at oo ay
ba
OT: een aeR ada

a
9. — in poe
oe
home ead
mt
oaVOLTLERESPONS
SS re ea (Td)

10. ieyou bowsproteaed

yn of
of the
he MOLE RESPONSE
waar fr 8 ln
Special door/window locks and grills 3==iyar Neighbourhood Not
aa aeara
/fitet cif oe fra Bye ane

Co pp ee ees
- Een *

12. Do you have a Voter ID card/Aadhar

card
wnsauk ae apna Wer w. Si) /amare ars 8? I=Yest! | 2=Nowt |

Bostonian
48 D. Srivastava and D. Prasad

€3 Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

New Delhi, India. London, UK. Accra, Ghana
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the Economic & Social Council of the United Nations

A2. Incidence of crimestRra @ wear

I am going to give you some examples that will give you an idea ofthe kinds of crimes this study covers. As I go through them,
tell me if any of these happened to you in the last one yea
A age) aw Serer 24 oT ver | GH snael ga wd 4 mia 1h wa 4 ye sraftn em) wa & 4 SH aes, ay FH
aad fe saa a arg A one are fea wH Be AE 2014 — FI 2015 A ETI
Did any incidence mentioned below experienced by you or any member of Whether the Did you report
ae household in the last one year from May 2014-June 2015 ? incidence took to the police?
free wa area Ag 2014 — FA 2015 4 Ara fea fee oN ve oT aqME ITs a ae place inside the
uy & fat a aaea err fear var en? city or outside
weal wer d Aer
EST UT UT ATER

CT ear eer re a ae
xe Assault resulting in injury, including physical
* ae wfed ae } oRoaSI EFe SAT
Bs.House = I Gel asa

mm Diighs eseeu
B4 Sexual Harassment (to be asked from adult female i
member of the asacael i / a Ser (aa WS

B5 Criminal nidaooerrer oan

B6. Un-natural Dea Posie pre ye oe
BT. Missingpersonsaify qm true orn [112] 87 | 1] 2] 1 | 2 [112
*Circle aeraven sectionsagm VAM SI Wha B
2 Crime Victimization and Safety Perception Survey: Delhi and Mumbai 49

) a ~ Commonwealth Hu
man Rights Initia
tive
;° New Delhi, India. London, UK. Accra, Ghana
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the Economic & Social Council of the United Nations

Project Vishwas Setu

Crime victimization and safety perception survey

PART B,C & D

Listing No.

| _Household ID | i.: _ Zone Thana Locality Name :

ome of Interviewer:

Date of Interview:
DAY/MONTH/YEAR
Type of dwelling: -

poms
Host (This includes only where respondent is sure loss of item is due to theft)(Multiple options are

ae i ak8 cee okwitin't fey ar it @ awe BTA Een 8) (CH A shee

Practst aft 2)
Code ec P| See | ae
Sewel Computer/
artet
rtet- Cae Laptop
Sfae

B1.1 In the past 1 Year, have you been a victim of theft in ma of the above ways?
fred 1 ara 4, wa ara See 4 a fet M wos a at wTROR

a
el a ee ee
se Se ey Row

B1.4Please name the wee A

aan eo sepa if rot nad ce—2, Don’t ask the locality name)
Oa MIM oa 12 8)
BESS EPOE Se
50 D. Srivastava and D. Prasad

a CS Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

New Delhi, India, London, UK. Accra, Ghana
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the Economic & Social Council of the United Nations

Time of occurrence
wer wT Waa
00:01 to 23:59
B1.6in case you were a victim of any of the crimes listed above, did you report to the police?
fora en?
amereat 4 a Pex ar Rar gy a a an ar gfera aw fate

B2. Assault resulting in injury, including physical injury

write de afd, de & oR BAe SAT

Attack you with Attack you with Attack you in

slapped/beat throwing a gun or a knife any other any other way
Wasi
/ Taran / 7 rocks/bottles at you age wm aa a dangerous object fart su atte
Ss ANI
/ Hara a WR FRR / alee

B2.1 Have you over the past one year been physically attacked by someone in any of the above ways: (read out)
aa amg ox ftea va oe 4 feet S err sore 4 G feet ft ate G aia wo G exon fem wee;

B2.2If Yes, how many times has this happened past one year?afe et @ flea ve ae 4 ae feat a gsm #7?

B2.3_ How many people attacked you? fear ari 4 sa we ere fern 8?
Onepenones5,et
LO) ae EE Ps es PTS
re
FS
2 Wit¥ ate
.4AWhere did this happ a eT?
Yourbapephen sdbreak-in

Wilmas
Ho Bret

Fam pg home

Your
ee

pee! place (mall/theatre/

restaurant/grocery store/
market)
mgat (fer / forex /

ayan
ncn_" street

In pal~~
bo

Thue of ecvarralile a: a 7
wet
or ea
00:01
to 23:
Bato youmow teoftesteds)
8) by name or sightat the time of the offence?
aa aT Se serene (srreferal) ay ary Pparyht hy»ofwean @ ene @ a?
2 Crime Victimization and Safety Perception Survey: Delhi and Mumbai 51

:v Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

New Delhi, India, London, UK. Accra, Ghana
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the Economic & Social Council of the United Nations
r — —
ts, E
Attack you with | Attack you with attack you in :
a gun oraknife | any other any other way
aye
ui aay a dangerous object | feeh aru atte
fad aa Gave | 8 30 Ww eet
MS ay W BAe

ard
ot a are a
(At least one) known Ff-
; alesis @) tar @

(At least one) known by

name
Sscanes

B2.8!n case you were a victim of any of crime listed above, did you report to the police?
wR am Su fea sowel 4G fee wr fer ge a a azar aga gira w Rate fen en?

: a door or
Forcing ; : , through an open door
Entering Using
; force, or threatening to use force,
: Manipulating a against you or any other person
Window Tan w lock ara 4 Bey |OF Window Pret gel xa aT | Ts anfee ora anit @ Raame we
war AT, a aa TANT wey DW) aaa ear
B3.1 In the last | year, has anyone broken in or attempted to break into your home by sf of the above ways?
fea 1 ore 4 em are ares ay 4 sar FG feet A ote S oom tear FET tT wt writer
at 8?

LIBRARY
NARAYAN RAO MELGIRI
National Law School
BANGALORE
52 D. Srivastava and D. Prasad

F “S. - Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

New Delhi, India. London, UK. Accra, Ghana |
*
% Vv NGO in Special Consultative Status with the Economic & Social Council of the United Nations

Followed by men till |Touched Sending unwanted

Passed lewd | Continuously
or stared at ina you were scared or indecently/groped/pi | Messages through
unwelcome | lewd or uncomfortable nched erat et te wet
sexual threatening eu ae aa ae gfren a rps ee ing
comments | manner ane tet een aa «| war /ecrrn/feera | Kelep' gt va
ae fe a7 Sx 4 wear

B4.10ver the past one year a. “ap or tried to harass you in any of the ways mentioned above?
wa fea we wa 4 et a Soe ward ates 4S org over fea * a eM oe H Sera H #7

venr home without

break-in
tren ae wR are ae
batsdane
Break-in

Commercial place
(mall/theatre/ restaurant/
Lame perch
sais

roorretA/a 4
——
In bus

In the an
et Hy

B4.4
7 ~oe of the locality where x happened?( If response in B4.3 is 1 or 2, Don’t ask the locality name)
wel ae ET a? Yori anette omy

Time of occurrence
wer or wa
00:01 to 23:59
B4.6Did you know thee offender(s) by name ordike
by och
at the time of the offence?
a SM SH sah Gra l) wy ara 8 a twa a arava
2 Crime Victimization and Safety Perception Survey: Delhi and Mumbai 53

/ . Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

New Delhi, India. London, UK. Accra, Ghana
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the Economic & Social Council of the United Nations
ao

Passed lewd Continuously Followed by men till Touched Sending unwanted

or stared at ina you were scared or indecently/groped/pi messages through
unwelcome | lewd or uncomfortable nched SMS/e-mail/social
sexual threatening area a media intemet making

mments - wal Zee / faa@rel telephone calls

aay ae — as / warawa
/ fhe / dia
a mai aisn /gewte S 4H a

pose
a ar watea wee Yorn /
ae ela Be

arn ot a are a
(At least one) known by

one ww @) tw a
ara a
At least one) known by
name
waa ww mS 3 3 3

—
ur @

arr ot ag tar ar
B4.7in case you were a victim of any of crime listed above, did you report to the police?
aR am Sor fea sure 4S feet a rer ee a at en a gfera a Rue fea an?

BS. Criminal intimidation

arr aA

. ln the last one year, did anyone threaten you (or your family) with injury or damaging your property for not following their demands?
we oer 4 an fed a at ai aT Ter AT SKA WR areal (a age GRar wl) ae a aaa aafs a awa Vea W aaa 4

BS5.3 Name of the locality where it happened? (If incidence happened at home,
Fa Ca BT A wey Ge ae Ee a? 1 wt

BS.4Did youknow the Ceieme by name orAkitesat the time of the offence?
Bam Sm faa
4 aa 2 OT ae @ GT RO?

arnt
wt af art a

—s Vwi wa meme
pont el + eee =
arent
ot 8 tan 7,
BS.5 tan you
wenstinfeyof caswaaiand ora
ar ara Sax fa sree 4 4 Peet or free gy a at wn am gf

B6.Un-natural Death(This does not include suicides that may have happened in households.)
i|
54 D. Srivastava and D. Prasad

fa Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

New Delhi, India, London, UK. Accra, Ghana
V NGO in Special Consultative Status with the Economic & Social Council of the United Nations

Member of your household died in

aroad/train accident
ord UR am Bee BSH / ea Gee A Ae

Time of occurrence (00:01 to

23:59)
wert a Wa
B6.5Did you know the offender(s) by name or by sight at the time of the offence?
aa amg Sa aah(@aaral) ae aA S a saa V ara A sae w wa Ww a?
Did not know offende?
arnt a wet ort

At least one) known by name

W B) 7m Ba a

Has anyone in your household gone missing and/or disappeared?

we oy 4 ore of aft 74 gor 8? “
 i) Crime Victimization and Safety Perception Survey: Delhi and Mumbai a an

,_ Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

Vv New Delhi, India. London, UK. Accra, Ghana
’ s] NGO in Special Consultative Status with the Economic & Social Council of the United Nations

First,
note down the crimes for which the respondent household had approached the police. In case of multiple cases reported
within a section,
mention each one ately. Then, mark the Section, Crime heading and Codes in the tables
wae Wea, Se awe @ ee wt ras faq seer oF EY 8 aoe fea at) a ww Gaee 4 oF Sa fear fea wa 8 aw Be @ He—sern wa | BES
we Gee, sows @ vite we Pre od ok eae 4 ars oe)

eee ee a D a a H
Wallet/Purse
eee ee a) = |~ Car
| Credit/Debit card | Jew Cell TV Computer L Cash
Assault resulting in injury, including physical injury eee wee oe
REE we Bory ar ok! E
Attack you with a gun ora | Attack you with any other Attack you in any other way
knife wo py object fea ou ate 8 a We eHaT
Tw a aye a we ENaT FU GHATS Tey 8 GT ere | BAI
oA

_Code | AS SEE et LY LE ee
a eRe |e
Manipulating a Entering through
an open door or | Using force,
| window fart qa cra a Rew &
or threatening to use force, against you or any other person
are aifodhaa wif © faery WaRo Wem, Ti eaWes Set Pane tr

4.Sexualk ska fom adultfemalememberofhehousehold respondents male)

Continuously stared at in a lewd Followed by men till you were Sending unwanted messages through
or threatening manner scared or uncomfortable indecently/groped/pinched SMS/e-mail/social media/interne making
wT svete a et & ate a gov gra ae aw arg tor een oa aRren & telephone calls
oe ona se 4 ay w araea 4 wat / cetera / fer eres wayaya / a /aire Asa /gewre B sea
a srafta wen torn / eee wa wet

Member of your household died in a road/train accident

ms Kw ae Hee
/2a Gen A a eB

Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

se NGO in Special Consultative Status with the Economic & Social Council of the United Nations

C.1. Reporting and response of policeftté an aR gfera H vfafrar

Mention relevant section 1-B6) ee
| oe

Sot be
Tortora helpline
ef
like 1091, 1094
a we
 D. Srivastava and D. Prasad
56

/Vy Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

| New Delhi, India. London, UK. Accra, Ghana
the United Nations
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the Economic & Social Council of

ee inquiries in the neighborhood including at schools,

hospitals and mortuaries
_ arererett afk
In case of a minor girl, set up a task Sas for locating the girl
ew arat aed e @ aa 8 oe) a oe el @ fey Cw ere
grt ro fran
Did not take your complaint and asked you to go to another
police station ara fererae wr are yt at site sire) Gr gfe
ENT wi & Bn.oe aT et

you st the police (please a aadown steps clearly and in detail in a separate sheet, if required),
C.2Briefly describe the experience when op :
gfere are Fergry eee or were A aoty we (ae creweBta Eva ster fea wat we-w « 4
Mention relevant section no.
B1-B7
Section headin

oF Commo nwealth Human Rights Initiative

New Delhi, India, London, UK. Accra, Ghana
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the Economic & Social Council of the United Nations
.3. Whether you are/were satisfied with the action taken by the police?(This refers only to the first response ofthe police.
Itdoes not cover
ee eee oe 9 7g isiia (6 gfore © °C sien @?ater#1 Ft Gre

ue es aR RE FET (ae, a EE eS Ce
_Not
ae satisfied ae Ta

3 _| They put meatfrult andtried to p Poy ST, Se a a YE SS eS SS A Ae EP Oe. aos me ee

cd

2 Crime Victimization and Safety Perception Survey: Delhi and Mumbai

Commonwealth
Human Rights Initiative
New Dethi, India. London, UK. Accra, Ghana
NGO lnSpecialConsultative SanuswiththeKconomic & SocialCounciloftheUnitedNations

. ei

es : : ‘
— —<—- a _ > * »

er ty is ge
Sin 3 Ohba 0 te ae =
tame eae ie zo hw as
| ra
Ce
am wi
aT aap e ey sn
mimes eS7 Riad
= ea ee
zi
Sat
ps .
a: Kes
~ Del aw| oe -
i eee
58 D. Srivastava and D. Prasad

s. * Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

: New Delhi, India. London, UK. Accra, Ghana
\ V _ NGO in Special Consultative Status with the Economic & Social Council of the United Nations

D. Perception of Safetyqrn @ aq74

gut alone at night?

DEWhat time would you startbane about safety of an adult male member of your household veraes
SOA UR @ US GUSH FSU TERITH Gal S a A wa a fea Aa Gah aeel Ter wer W fan eT
after 7 pm after 8 pm after 9 pm after 10 pm after 11 pm sgreg Would not worry
bale
7TH We wae Ae ad 10 at @ ae 11 TA @ We
Sis
SORT ee Ses ey ee bc. lecarNes
ns tomipratian
oes Dee gee Pesca
he ae
ne rgee
D2Whattime would a start of an adult female member of your household who is out alone at night?
Bya WH aap Afeel ad ae a wa a) a wea sad see arex wea Wefi Ga BS HY SN?
after 7 pm after 8 — Tae 9 pm after 1] pm After midnight — a
not
7 Wl & ae 8h aE 9 a @ ae aan an ar
+ Seas
__l|_2 _l ss te
Do you feel safe leaving your home locked for many days?
Se ee

Do you feel safe traveling using public transport alone os the day?(1=Yes, 2=No, 3= == Kaew)
am am fa & aR aba udutte oRaea or ger wea EU aT Se Baa seyR area &? (=e, 2=AGl, sare AEH)
DTC/BEST Grameen Delhi/Mumbai | Delhi/ Mumbai a Shared eeTaxi we Ae
taxi
buses Sewa Metro/Local metro feeder es
buses
feceht/
nm|eeeres ™

DSAt what time in the evening would you stop feeling safe while re using public a
ada cRaeq gear Hed By UT Sed waa wes ol fea wa Ffsig Rea ASS Se Fe He ei)?
after 10pm_ | after 11 pm After midnight Would not worry
ain an — ina ee alee aa He US are feier vel eT
ORE 9SERG “Oe
WCU:
eas what time in ae evening would
peterson
you stop safe whileaaaatioes
in your personal transport (cycle, bike, car)?
rR Prof ares (ergfira, aw, BR) ¥ aa aa WAG eH at fea wD A sm |Raa Seg wen oe WCF
— feel Se al
er a a San a a aa tee aia inna
are See as SS

———you ———
safe walking = in your8Ssduring ae
day?
ee enn ae

D8 At what time in = evening would you stop feeling safe walking around alone in your Sone
wr @ fra wa 4 sig a asta 4 aba eee we yea FeqE ea dz ax Bi?
after 9 pm after 10 pm bre bene midnight poy
feel safe
tae aaa Aaa ae steaw'ee [rome rg se

Pro
At what time inaevening eto
wotags stop women
safe ere
money fromtie
your ee
om @ fa wa ¥ ona omy aera & véren @ then Paras we yes HeEN BT dz wy BH?

rae:
after 7 pm
iim [Poe
after 8 pm
[eee [Wem [arwtese
after 9 pm
[mr
after
10 pm | after11 pm | After midnight Alwa en

2 a a Daa a we ee eee
eermuch of a problem do you think crime is in your local area
ame wersta era # arrere array feat we) ere arma @
Big problem Somewhat of a problem but not very big Not much of a problem Don't know
a wren GB ee ae aren afr ah) wren ae aga wren ae balks liad
Gt 5k OS SE Ses TT HES ea
12
2 Crime Victimization and Safety Perception Survey: Delhi and Mumbai 59

Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

New Deihi, India. London, UK. Accra, Ghana
NGO in Special Consultative Status with the Economic & Social Council of the United Nations

D11 What inyour opinion isthe single most (writehere Indetail)

prevalent crime in your residential area? (wet faa @ fered)
are wa 4 ae sada aa 4 we aad wafer aoe
om
a&

D12 Which ofthefollowing crimes do you fear youarelikely tobea victim of? MULTIPLE RESPO
Prafafed are 4a fad ame fra er mie Wnts

en ae
bea
SS eee ———
wan arent aren & fe ance sorérengfera aretar 5 pees

sa ited nape i af mre) |

60 D. Srivastava and D. Prasad

References

Common Cause and Lokniti — Centre for the Study of Developing Societies. (2018). Status of
policing in India report 2018: A study of performance and oerceptions. https://commoncause.
in/pdf/SPIR2018.pdf
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative and Association for Advocacy and Legal Initiatives.
(2020). Police registration of sexual offences: A guide on procedures and holding police
accountable. https://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/download/1610003834Police%20
Registration %200f%20Sexual %20O0ffences%20English.pdf
Operation Shistachar: In 20 days, 370 arrested, 2400 detained for harassing women, The Indian
Express: _ http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/operation-shishtachar-in-20-days-370-
arrested-2400-detained-for-harassing-women. Express News Service, New Delhi, August
31, 2015.
Hoffmeye-Zlotnik, J. H. P. (2003). New sampling designs and the quality of data. http://mrvar.fdv.
uni-lj.si/pub/mz/mz19/hoff.pdf
Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. (2015). National sample survey 71st round
“key indicators of social consumption: Health’. http://mospi.nic.in/sites/default/files/national_
data_bank/ndb-rpts-71.htm
Murphy, P. (2008). An overview of primary sampling units (PSUs) in multi stage samples of demo-
graphic surveys. Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section, American Statistical
Association.
National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs. (2014). Crime in India: 2014. https://
ncrb.gov.in/en/crime-india-year-2014
National Research Council. (2014). Estimating the incidence of rape and sexual assault. The
National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18605
Turner, A. G., & United Nations Secretariat Statistics Division. (2003). Sampling strategies. http://
unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/meetings/egm/Sampling_1203/docs/no_2.pdf
 Chapter 3
Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime
(SATARC): A Crime Victimisation Survey

Neha Sinha and Avanti Durani

1 Introduction

IDFC Institute conducted a survey of 20,597 households titled Safety Trends and
Reporting of Crime (SATARC). The survey asked respondents whether they, or in
certain cases a member of their household, had been a victim of seven crimes—
theft, assault, house break-in, harassment, criminal intimidation, unnatural death,
and missing person—in the past year (October 2015 to September 2016), their expe-
riences with the police, their perceptions of safety, and about the behavioural
changes they may have adopted to avoid victimisation. The survey was conducted
between November 2016 and February 2017 across four major cities—Mumbai,
Delhi, Bengaluru, and Chennai. This chapter covers the research objective, method-
ology including sample design, survey instrument, and execution framework, key
findings from the survey, and learnings for the way forward.
The SATARC survey was an attempt to marshal evidence about the extent and
nature of crime, satisfaction with the police, and perceptions of safety to bridge the
gap in public data on crime, law enforcement, and safety. The objective of the sur-
vey was to systematically assess households’ perception of safety and the police,

Neha Sinha was the former Deputy Director and an Associate Fellow and Avanti Durani was the
former Assistant Director and a Junior Fellow at IDFC Institute, a Mumbai based think/do tank.
The team which carried out this survey consisted of Avanti Durani, Neha Sinha, Dr. Renuka Sane
and Rithika Kumar. The authors also thank Sridhar Ganapathy, former Senior Associate at IDFC
Institute, for his able research assistance.

N. Sinha - A. Durani (24)

Artha Global, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
e-mail: [email protected]; avanti.durani @artha.global

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 61

S. Krishnaswamy et al. (eds.), Crime Victimisation in India, Springer Series
on Asian Criminology and Criminal Justice Research,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03 1-12251-4_3
62 N. Sinha and A. Durani

identify behavioural changes adopted by households to keep themselves safe, evalu-

ate people’s opinion of police, and estimate the incidence of certain personal and
household crimes.
The SATARC survey serves as an illustration of what can be achieved at the
national level. Data from such surveys can potentially complement official crime
records by evaluating people’s attitude towards the police and courts, assessing the
impact of crime on quality of life, and identifying crimes that are not reported to the
police. The data can be used for recognising those most vulnerable to crime and
devising strategies to build enough safeguards to protect them. In effect, this can be
a critical tool to elevate the quality of life and economic participation of those mar-
ginalised by crime. The importance of a crime victimisation survey (CVS) cannot
be emphasised enough for an emerging economy like India. Plugging this gap in
public data is an important step for rule of law.

2 Sampling and Survey Methodology

Sample Design

The survey was conducted in four major metropolitan centres—Mumbai, Delhi,

Bengaluru, and Chennai. These urban agglomerations were selected based on the
criteria that they are thriving centres of economic activity and livelihood creation,
which makes them ideal for assessing the impact of crime and safety on citizens.
Each city was divided into its already existing police zones—the police administra-
tive regions within the police Commissionerate boundaries. Assuming a level of
confidence at 95% and margin of error at 5%, the sample size for each police zone
was estimated as 384. To safeguard against non-response, a buffer of 15% was
added which took the minimum sample size to 450 per zone.
Sample size computation:

he Dott x Eel da’

where:

n; sample size
Deff: Design effect was assumed to be 1 in the absence of many layers of
stratification
z: statistic of 1.96 for the level of confidence at 95%
p: Assumed at 50%
d: Margin of error at 5%
In addition, 90 purposive interviews for victims of the surveyed crimes were
done in each zone to allow for population-level estimates of crime incidence and
victim’s experience with police. The total sample size including the purposive
 3 Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisation Sur vey 63

SS oe.
anna
7 Se ——— =

i i AY Ncx
Delhi Mumbai Chennai Bengaluru
6,187 7,910 2,433 4,067

AF
respondents respondents

¢
respondents respondents

Note: This includes the total number of randomly and purposively sampled respondents
in each city.
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Fig. 3.1 Sample size of each of the surveyed cities

interviews across the four cities came up to 20,597. The sample size for each city is
shown below (Fig. 3.1).
Sample selection was done using stratified random sampling to achieve the age
and gender distribution of each city’s adult' population. Quotas for the age-gender
distribution were determined using the population data as per the Government of
India’s Census Data for 2011. In the absence of population data at the police zone
level, it was assumed to be evenly distributed across the zones within each city.
The survey ensured randomisation at two levels: selection of a household and
selection of a respondent within the household. Landmarks were chosen within
each zone to ensure sufficient geographic spread and a “right-hand rule” was applied
to survey 20—25 households near each landmark. At least 3 households were skipped
between two surveyed households. The randomly surveyed sample was self-
weighted against the age-gender distribution of the adult population. The weights
used for estimating results were calculated using the following formula:

fw=wl/w2

where:
fw: final weights
wl: desired sample per gender for a given age bracket/desired total sample for
the city

'18 years and above.

 N. Sinha and A. Durani
64

sam-
w2: achieved random sample per gender for a given age bracket/achieved total
ple for the city

Population estimations were done for details on crime incidence, opinion about
police, and public perception about safety.

Survey Instrument

The survey instrument included the following:

1. Demographic details
2. Incidence of the following crimes—Theft, Assault, House break-in, Harassment,
Criminal Intimidation, Unnatural Death and Missing Person
. Details of crime incidence
. Reporting of the incident to the police
. Opinions about police
W
BR
Nn . Perceptions of safety
The survey was administered in either English, Hindi, Kannada, or Tamil. The
English survey instrument is provided in the Annexure.

Definition of Crimes

The seven surveyed crimes were divided into two categories: Personal crimes, i.e.
those committed against the individual (theft, assault, harassment, and criminal
intimidation) and Household crimes, i.e. those committed against the entire house-
hold (house break-in, unnatural death and missing person). In order to achieve accu-
racy in responses, questions on personal crimes were asked only if the selected
respondent was a victim. The definitions used to describe these crimes were based
on the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Simplified versions of these
definitions were conveyed to the respondents with the help of showcards.
Descriptions of the surveyed crimes are below:
1. Theft

(a) Someone dishonestly took any of your movable property without your per-
mission (express or implied).
(b) Someone stole an item from you.

2. Assault
(a) Someone used force or made any gesture to use force on you, without your
consent, in order to commit an offence or cause injury, fear or annoyance.
(b) Someone used force or violence against you/attacked you.
 3 Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisation Survey 65

3. Harassment
(a) You were victim of any of the following form of sexual harassment:
Physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual
overtures
Lewd or unwelcome comments
A demand or request for sexual favours
Stalked/followed you
Indecently exposed themselves to you
Making sexually coloured remarks

(b) Someone harassed you in the following ways:

Physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual
overtures,
Lewd or unwelcome comments,
A demand or request for sexual favours,
Stalked/followed you,
Indecently exposed themselves to you
Making sexually coloured remarks
4. Criminal intimidation

(a) You were threatened against injury to your body, reputation or property, or
to the body or reputation of anyone in your household, with the intent to
cause alarm to you or to cause you to do any act which you are not legally
bound to do, or to stop you from doing any act which you are legally entitled
to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
(b) Someone threatened to hurt you or a member of your household, or damage
your property, to try and make you do something or stop you from doing
something, to fulfil their demands.
5. House break-in

(a) A person entered your property/dwelling with the intent to commit an

offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such
property/dwelling, by entering into or remaining or quitting the house or any
part of it.
(b) Someone entered your house without your permission and may have tried to
commit a crime.
6. Unnatural Death

(a) A person in your household passed away due to reasons other than natural
causes, including sickness, ill health, disease, etc. The deceased person may
have died due to an unnatural reason such as, culpable homicide, murder, or
accidental death; however, it does not include suicide.
 N. Sinha and A. Durani
66

(b) A person in your household was murdered or died in an accident. Please

don’t include cases where death occurred due to natural causes like sickness,
ill health, disease.

7. Missing Person
(a) The whereabouts of your household member is not known, and is not trace-
able. No information regarding such person whether dead or alive is available.
(b) You have no knowledge of the whereabouts of a household member.

Outline of the Survey

At the outset, after taking consent from the respondent, the survey captured infor-
mation on the locality, police zone, nearest police station, and type of dwelling of
the respondent. Thereafter, the first section was on demographic details of the
household. This included information on the age and gender of the household mem-
bers, based on which a respondent was selected according to the age and gender
quota assigned for that day. Detailed information on employment, education, mari-
tal status, religion, language, and length of stay in the city and current address was
recorded. The demographic details of the sample are elaborated below and contin-
ued in the Annexure.
The respondent was then asked if he/she, or in certain cases a household mem-
ber, has been a victim of any of the seven crimes in the past year. The following
section on details of crime incidence was administered only if the respondent or
household member, as required, was a victim of at least one of the surveyed crimes.
The section captured details of the crime such as nature of the crime, place and time
of the crime, familiarity with the offender, reporting of the crime to the police,
amongst other details. As a follow up, the respondents were asked about their expe-
rience of reporting the crime to the police, only if the crime was reported. This sec-
tion was only administered to the victim, or the household member, who approached
the police to report the crime in order to ensure the accuracy of information about
the experience. The section captured information on how they approached the
police, the initial action taken by the police, the experience of reporting the crime,
and reasons for satisfaction or dissatisfaction at the stage of reporting the crime. The
survey did not ask about the police’s response beyond registration of the crime or
survey police personnel. Separately, for those who did not report the crime, we
asked them the reasons for not approaching the police.
The next section was on opinions about the police. All respondents, independent
of them having faced a crime, were asked about their views on the police. This
included questions on whether police can be relied on, if the police are doing a good
job of maintaining safety in their area, and so on. The final section was on safety
perceptions where we asked the respondents several questions to gauge their views
on safety in their area. We asked the respondents if they worried about household
members being outside their homes after dark, or were worried about walking alone
 3 Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisation Survey 67

in the area, took precautions to keep themselves safe, their views on the severity of
the crime in their area, amongst several other questions.

Survey Execution

Training

Experienced interviewers, who had worked previously on social surveys and were
familiar with the data collection methods, were selected for the training. Intensive
and immersive training sessions were conducted for the fieldworkers and supervi-
sors, before the survey was administered in the field. The field workers were apprised
of the purpose of the survey, sensitivity of the subject, and trained on data collection
and administration of the survey instrument. The final cohort of trainers were
selected based on their performance in mock interviews. Nearly half of the selected
surveyors were women.

Ethics Review and Consent

Following international best practices, before going into field work, we sought
approval from an independent ethics review board/institutional review board (IRB)
to ensure that procedures followed during the survey adequately protected the rights
of the respondents. Their consent was taken at the time of administering each indi-
vidual survey and they were made aware of the social and ethical concerns related
to the survey, their right of refusal, and confidentiality of their personal data to
ensure that they participated willingly.

Administration and Data Collection

The survey was conducted simultaneously across the four cities between November
2016 and February 2017. The respondents were asked questions on each of the
seven crimes that they were victims of, for the period of October 2015 to September
2016, and their experience while reporting the crime to the police. The survey
administration for data collection, conducted by Kantar Public, happened over three
stages: pilots (administering the survey to a select number of households), field-
work, and audits/backchecks. Robustness and quality of the collected data was
ensured through the backchecks and audits.
Prior to rolling out the survey, we conducted pilot interviews in all four cities to
test the questionnaire and survey administration process and make any improve-
ments, if necessary. This was an important step since the learnings from this stage
were incorporated into the instrument and the final data collection process to make
them more robust.
 68 N. Sinha and A. Durani

3 Key Findings

Summary Statistics of the Random Sample

This section describes the demographic characteristics of the respondents across

cities. The sample was drawn in proportion with the size of the population in each
city. The data presented here includes information about the randomly surveyed
sample only. Of the sample, 38% were from Mumbai, followed by 30% from Delhi.
The remaining 20% and 12% were residents of Bengaluru and Chennai (Table 3.1).
The sample was representative of the adult population by age and gender distri-
bution. In the case of Delhi and Mumbai, males in the sample accounted for 53%
and 54% of the population. In Chennai and Bengaluru, males constituted 50% and
52%. The remaining sample included women in each city, making the sample nearly
equidistributed between male and female respondents (Table 3.2).
The bulk of the sample in each city was in the age group of 21-40 years. In all
the four cities, this band constituted 50-60% of the sample. This was followed by
the age band of 41-50 years, with 15-18% of the sample across the four cities. The
mean age of the sample lies between 37 and 40 years (Table 3.3).

Table 3.1 Distribution of sample by city (%)

Delhi Bengaluru
30 20
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Table 3.2 Gender —

distribution aa
(%)
Gender Bengaluru
"toe onan 2
Female
Source: SATARC a IDFC Institute, 2017

Table 3.3 Age distribution by city (%)

Age [Deihi
[Mumba Chenna
i i | Bengatura
18-20 ee ee :
21-30 33
31-40 25
41-50 illness ilmenite
51-60 ee ee
61-70 en etter: totedabeecba
70% 5Alle vksandoow 2: ehtabanees
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institut e, 2017
 3 Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisation Survey 69

Crime Incidence

The survey data allowed us to estimate the overall crime incidence for each crime in
each city. Theft was the most prevalent of the surveyed crimes across the four cities.
In Delhi, 8.26% of people reported being a victim of a theft. The proportions were
4.14% in Mumbai and 2% in both Chennai and Bengaluru. The results and popula-
tion level estimates are presented below (Table 3.4).

Table 3.4 Crime incidence

| Victims at Victims at
Sample sample level | Victimisation (%) at |population level
Crime a size (n) (n) population level (n)
Theft 8.26 13,87,428
Mumba 4.14 5,13,422
Chen | 40
|2010 nai [2.00 94,005
Assault
‘Beng
3415aluru
|69 — ~*(1.98
1.04
,90,186
1,74,266
Maal |6604 [34 0.52 65,075
Chen |2010 nai
| 4 [0.21 9,644
Bengaluru |3415_| 0 [000 — _—(
Harassment * GC CAS 15 1,92,377
‘Mumbai [6604 |27-1039 48,682
Chen | 5
|2010 nai 0.25 11,623
0.33 31,354
House break-in|Delhi |5164 | 53 | 1.01 1,70,318
0.52 64,331
Chen |2010 nai
| 5 0.27 12,751
Bengaluru |3415 | 2 [0.04 | 4,253
Criminal [Delhi [5164 |140.27 45,646
intimidation [Mumbai [6604 | 17 (026. — _—*(31,657
Chennai {2010 |0. 1 04
Bengaluru |3415 | 1 [0.03 | 3,264
Unnatural Debi [sie [8 Jos 25,183
(Chennai [2010 | 0 Joon ]o
Bengaluru[34i5_| 0 [000 ——_—‘{o
Missing person|Deihi [S164 | 4 [008 _____| 12,986
(Mumbai [6604 | 0 [000 _—_—_|o
(Chennai [2010 | 0 [000 __—_o
Bengaturu|3415_| 0 [000 _—_—‘{o
Otter ——~*([Dethi—‘|sies
| 3 (006 ———«*i9 a6
[Mumbai [6604 |[0000
0
(Chennai [2010 |[009
2 ——~*(iaea
Bengaluru[3415_| 6 [019 _ _ |18,836
- Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

ae
70 N. Sinha and A. Durani

Underreporting of Crime: Survey Results in Comparison

to Official Records

In order to understand the relationship between crime incidence as reported in the

survey and official records, we looked at the number of respondents who mentioned
that they faced a crime (theft), who subsequently approached the police to report
this, and finally managed to file a First Information Report (FIR). The FIRs are what
ultimately reflect in official crime statistics published by the National Crime Records
Bureau (NCRB, 2016). This analysis helped highlight the level of underreporting
that occurs for crimes, particularly theft in this case. The results presented here are
at the population level.
According to the survey, 13.9 lakh people were victims of theft in Delhi. Of
these, 6.18 lakhs approached the police to report the crime but only 99,239 were
successful in registering their case. In terms of proportion of the population, a higher
proportion of victims approached the police to report the incident in Mumbai (32%)
and Delhi (45%), compared to Bengaluru (18%) and Chennai (20%). However, after
approaching the police, a higher proportion managed to file an FIR in Bengaluru
(40%) and Chennai (41%), than in Mumbai (18%) and Delhi (16%) (Fig. 3.2).
Below is a comparison of the data from SATARC Survey with theft reported in
2016 as per NCRB’s Crime in India report (Table 3.5):
In effect, only 6-8% of victims of theft lodged an FIR with the police in the four
cities. It is this fraction of cases that are finally reflected in official records, leaving
the remaining 92-94% unreported. As police performance is based primarily on
crime statistics, suppressed crime rates are an incomplete measure of the delivery of
law and order and safety (Table 3.6).
Based on data from the survey, it is clear that the true rate of crime is high com-
pared to official records. A low official crime rate may not necessarily mean a “lack
of crime” instead, it points to a more serious problem, both for the citizens and for
the police. A low crime rate masks the extent of the problem at the ground level,
which may result in lower resource allocation for the police. This in turn may impact
their capacity to deliver sound law and order to the people. Correct diagnosis of the
issues, through improved estimation of crime, can better prepare the police as a
public institution. A CVS gives the police a better understanding of crime and helps
bridge the gap in public data benefitting both the people and the police.

Reporting to and Satisfaction with Police

The results presented in this section pertain to theft only and are at the sample level.
To begin with, respondents who had been a victim of theft were asked to recall
which item had been stolen. The most common item across all the cities was mobile
phones (44% in Mumbai, 42% in Delhi, 36% in Bengaluru, and 35% in Chennai).
 3 Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisation Survey
71

There is massive under-reporting of theft

@ SATARC-
Victims

Delhi — SATARC-Victims
Population: 168 lakhs who approached
SATARC-FIR filed ihe police
as a % of victims: 7.2 ME SATARC-Victims
h
— 13.9 lakhs eeennes an
6.18 lakhs
— 99,239

Chennai Bengaluru Mumbai

Population: 47 lakhs Population: 96 lakhs Population: 124 lakhs
SATARC-FIR filed SATARC-FIR filed SATARC-FIR filed
as a % of victims: 8.4 as a % of victims: 7.4 asa % of victims: 5.9

0.9 lakhs
0.19 lakhs 1.9 lakhs
7,909 0.35 lakhs
14,017 5.1 lakhs
1.63 lakhs
Note: The city boundaries correspond to the respective 30.084
’
Commissionerates of Police. Population data sourced fro mM
Census of India, 2011. FIR refers to First Information Report.
The numbers indicate victims who approached/registered an FIR by themselves or
through a household member.

Note: The results are presented at the population level.

Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Fig. 3.2 Magnitude of under-reporting of thefts crimes in the surveyed cities

Table 3.5 Comparison of theft crimes using results from the SATARC Survey (2016-17) and
NCRB Crime in India Report (2016)
Theft victims who lodged an FIR Theft cases reported in 2016 (NCRB)*
City (SATARC) (n) (n)
Delhi 99,239 1,26,467
Mumbai 9,839
Chennai 3,070
Jengalu 10,578
Note: The results are presented at the population level
“https://nerb.gov.in/sit es/def
%20in ault/f
%20India% 20-%20201 6%20Complrime
iles/C ete% 20
PDF%20291117.pdf
72 N. Sinha and A. Durani

Table 3.6 Magnitude of underreporting of theft crimes

| | Magnitude of
Theft victims at population |Theft cases reported in | underreporting of theft
level (SATARC) (n) 2016 (NCRB)* (n) crimes
Delhi | 13,87,428 126,467
‘Mumbai | 5,13,422 —_—
| 9,839
Ss $$ ————_j
ae
——__—_ ——e

Chennai 94,005 3,070 31x

1,90,186 gate ae 18x
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017
‘https://ncrb.gov.in/sites/default/files/Crime%20in %20India%20-%202016%20Complete%20
PDF%20291117.pdf

Table 3.7 Which items were stolen? (theft) (%)

Bengaluru
Luggage 7
Wallet/purse 16 14
Credit/debit card 2 4
Jewellery you were wearing/carrying ig Team ar eRe FONT 9
Mobile 44 35 36
Laptop er ae aes eT
Cash Cee oe ee
Car
Other TEL ee E
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

This was followed by wallet/purse in Mumbai (18%) and Delhi (16%), and cash in
Bengaluru (24%) (Table 3.7).
Subsequently, they were asked where the incident occurred. The most common
response from the victims was in a public bus in Bengaluru (33%), Delhi (25%), and
Chennai (24%). In Mumbai the most common response was in their home with
break-in (23%). This was followed by in open areas/on the street/train station in
Bengaluru (23%) and Mumbai (19%), in their home without break-in Chennai
(22%), and in their home with break-in in Delhi (21%) (Table 3.8).
When asked what time of day the incident occurred, unfortunately, a large por-
tion of the respondents could not recall the time across all four cities (69-82%).
From those who were able to, their responses were 12 pm-—12 am in Delhi (7%),
12 pm-—6 pm in Mumbai (8%) and Chennai (12%), and 6 pm-—12 am in Bengaluru
(14%) (Table 3.9),
Of those who did approach the police to report the theft incident, we asked them
which mode of communication they used to initially contact the police. The top
response from the respondents across all four cities was by going to the police sta-
tion (78% in Mumbai, 74% in Chennai, 73% in Delhi, and 72% in Bengaluru). The
next most common response was also the same across all the four cities—called 100
or any other relevant police helpline (16% in Delhi, 12% in Chennai and Bengaluru,
and 8% in Mumbai) (Table 3,10).
 3 Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisation Survey 73

Table 3.8 In which place did the incident occur? (theft) (%)
Place Delhi Mumbai |Chennai |Bengaluru
In open areas/on the streeV/train station | 20 19 714° 23
Tnapublicbus alt 14 126... 133
Your “home with break- oF Re | | 21 23 | 9 2
Your home without t
break-in aes o ‘113 [22 ]
‘Commercial place (mall/theatre/restauranU/grocery store/| 7 | 8 meg ree Fy
market) )
In the metro/local train es
Your workplace ;
-Family/friend’s home a
In an auto/cab
Other
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Table 3.9 What time of the mn did the incident occur? (theft) )

Time Bengaluru
a Sa a &
Lt SS a A 9
ST a a a
12 am-6 am 2
Don'tknow (82
—*(8i_—S—«d'TB 69
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Table 3.10 What mode of communication did you use to report the incident to the police?
(theft) (%)
Mode Delhi_[Mumbai [Chennai |Bengaluru
Went to the police station 74
Called 100 or any other relevant police helpline ee ee ee 12
Online complaint reporting ‘ec ean Fite ad baisees: 4. 6
Approached a police control room (PCR) van ois polite hc lla A eee: 5
Other <a arailbane wees.
a
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

The respondents were then asked to recall the initial action taken by the police
when the incident was reported to them. The most common answer across the four
cities was that the police filed a complaint—63% in Delhi, 60% in Mumbai, 46% in
Bengaluru, and 41% in Chennai. In Bengaluru and Chennai, 25% and 21% of the
respondents, respectively, managed to register an FIR? while in Mumbai and Delhi,
the proportions were lower at 13% and 12%, respectively (Table 3.11).

2Section 378 of the IPC defines “theft” and section 379 of the IPC provides for punishment for
theft. As per the latter, the offence is “cognisable” meaning a police officer can arrest without war-
rant. It is also non-bailable.
74 N. Sinha and A. Durani

Table 3.11 What was the initial action taken by the police when the incident was reported to
them? (theft) (%)

Action oe i ae e | ai
| Delhi |Mumb Chennai Bengaluru

Filed aeomolemnts oot) | 63 eT ee Ce 46

Registered afirst information report (FIR) | 12 i3 |2] 25
Dispatched a PCR van | 6 | 5 | 6 Z
Did not entertain your complaint because the case was 3 4 6
not under that police stations jurisdiction /
—
_

Took the wounded persons, if any, for medical assistance | 2 1 4 Z 3

Directed you to the police station you should go to 3 7 7 6
Reached the spot where you called from and made 4 4 13 |
inquiries
Did not do anything 6 1 5
Other ne eeBae ©:
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Table 3.12 Reasons for satisfaction for theft victims (%)

Reason Bengaluru
They registered my complaint with accuracy 45 83
They listened attentively 79 89
They explained their future course of action 44 33
They registered my complaint promptly 58 32
They took action quickly rea 39 18
They arrived in time Ca aaa E: 29
Other eee mR ee
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

The survey then asked victims who approached the police if they were satisfied
with their experience of reporting to the police. More than half of them were satis-
fied with the police’s response at the time of reporting the crime in Delhi (52%) and
Mumbai (55%). The proportions were higher in Chennai (82%) and Bengaluru
(70%). The respondents had to then select from a predetermined list of responses
the reasons for satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the police response. This was a
multiple-choice question.
The main reason for satisfaction was the police’s attentiveness in dealing with
the victim, This was followed by accuracy in registering the complaint, promptness
in attending to the victim, and quick and timely action (Table 3.12).
Dissatisfaction was primarily due to the long wait in registering the FIR, refusal
in registering the FIR, or the police dissuading the victim from registering an FIR
(Table 3.13),
Soft skills emerge as the key to satisfaction. Given that the police are the first
interface with the criminal justice system, data on the reasons for satisfaction and
dissatisfaction can be useful inputs in developing training and sensitisation pro-
grammes for the police.
 3 Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisation Survey 75

Table 3.13 Reasons for dissatisfaction for theft victims (%)

Reason ed Delhi Mumbai Chennai Bengaluru
They were arrogant and ill-mannered aaa me = eae 134. wen 406 19
They pinned the blame on me and tried to dissuade me 19 | 16 31 16
BomrepstcringanFIR =
1required external influence to register the FIR =—S | 8 |5 19 19
They asked us/me to pay an amount % : 110 Oy ea 25 |13
The PCR van took over an hour
to arrive at the spot from /15 Ta 1's | 22
where Icalled _
They refused to register my FIR and asked me to leave
ae “ P sd RS
They made me wait without any reason and took a long
time to register my FIR

Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Table 3.14 Reasons for not approaching the police for theft victims (%)
Reason Bengaluru
Afraid to go to the police station Re i tee 28 21
Took help from another agency/person to resolve issue 2 8
Didn’t know the helpline number 2 lege eae 10
Lack of evidence 51 31
Did not want to report family matters pce Ia? ee |13 20
Felt that the police will not entertain the complaint 19 18
Didn’t think it was serious 16 33
Did not think the police will be able to do anything about 15
the case
Other reasons 8
Didn’t know where to go 19 17
Fear of retaliation 5,fend titel covet Sree 16
Did not want to get stuck in police/court matters Te eee 35
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Notably, a large number of victims did not approach the police. According to the
survey, 55% of victims in Delhi, 68% in Mumbai, almost 80% and 82% in Chennai
and Bengaluru did not approach the police to register the crime. The respondents
had to then select from a predetermined list of reasons for not approaching the
police. Some of the top reasons why people refrain from approaching the police
ranged from the belief that the police will not entertain the complaint or lack of
evidence, no expectation of response from the police or fear of getting stuck in
police and court matters.
This was a multiple-choice question. The results presented here pertain to theft
only and are presented at the sample level (Table 3.14).
 N. Sinha and A. Durani
76

Opinion on Police

about the police.

As with any public service, it is important to gauge public opinion
ing a people’s
Opinion about the police is an important parameter towards build
used as input
police. Public opinion gauged through a systematic survey can be
such that
towards confidence building measures. It can be used to build mutual trust
principle
the police machinery is able to derive legitimacy from its own people—a
to
strongly recommended for modern policing globally. Respondents were asked
Likert
express how much they agree or disagree with a statement about police on a
relied
Scale. Overall, people agreed most with the statement that the police can be
upon when needed (75-91% across all four cities) and agreed least with the state-
ment that the police are underpaid and overworked (28-53% across all four cities).
The results presented here indicate the proportion that agreed with the statement,
estimated at the population level (Table 3.15).
When these questions are looked at through the lens of age, gender, and victim
of the surveyed crimes versus non-victim, there were interesting observations. The
results for age and gender are estimated at the population level. The results for vic-
tim versus non-victim are presented at the sample level.
Statement: The police can be relied on when needed
When asked whether the police can be relied on when needed, in Delhi, the propor-
tion that agreed with this statement the most were between 18 and 20 years (79%).
In Mumbai, those between 41-50 years and 70+ years agreed with this the most
(88%). In Chennai (96%) and Bengaluru (100%), those above the age of 70 years,
agreed with this statement the most (Table 3.16).
In Delhi (77%) and Bengaluru (84%), men agreed with this statement more than
women. The reverse was seen in Chennai (92%). In Mumbai the proportions were
the same (85%) (Table 3.17).
In all four cities, the non-victim respondents agreed with this statement more
than respondents who had been a victim of any of the surveyed crimes (Delhi 75%,
Mumbai 86%, Chennai 91%, and Bengaluru 81%). This seems to indicate that the
opinion about whether the police can be relied on when needed may decrease once
they interact with them (Table 3.18).

Table 3.15 Opinion on police (%)

Statement ‘Delhi|
Mumbai
|Chennai |Bengalura
Police presence in a secluded area makes you feel safe oe ie 76 64
Police can be relied on when needed cele loan | Se 81
Police will treat you respectfully when you reach outto {59 | 71 77 47
them
Police are doing a good job at maintaining a safe 59 76 64
environment in the city
Police are underpaid and overworked 48; 28% thea 46
The police in your locality understand the issues that 57 58
impact the community
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017
| 3 Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisation Survey 77
I 7
Fa

’ =
pig ho” We

bares wae gAint » £

wash!
-

” i Waileg uti
78 N. Sinha and A. Durani

Table 3.17 Opinion by gender (%)

—[Deihi [Chennai [Bengaluru | Mumbai
|Female | Male Female | Male
Se

Gender Male |Female Male Female

!e
Disagree __ hesivame.
Neither agree nor disagree | 11
Don’t know l
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Table 3.18 Opinion by victim versus non-victim (%) (sample level)

Bengaluru
in| vetin|visim|
Victim |victim
HO sai|Micaela)
wei_|vicin|wt
Victim | victim
OUS = 168, (BL
Victim | victim
1a
Disagree 294
ees
Neither agree nor
ht Pe ee ee
13 12 3 3

S22 ne ae a Far ee fe ee ee
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Statement: The police are underpaid and overworked

When asked whether they thought the police are underpaid and overworked, those
that agreed with this statement the most were 70+ years in Delhi (38%) and Mumbai
(57%), 21-30 years in Chennai (53%), and 61-70 years in Bengaluru (56%)
(Table 3.19).
In Mumbai (54%), Bengaluru (48%), and Chennai (47%), men agreed with this
Statement more than women. In Delhi, the proportions were the same (28%)
(Table 3.20),
In Bengaluru (50%), Chennai (44%), and Delhi (29%), the victim respondents
agreed with this statement more than respondents who had not been a victim of any
of the surveyed crimes. In Mumbai, non-victim respondents (54%) agreed with this
statement more than the surveyed victims. This may indicate that those who interact
with the police to report their crime may be able to witness the workload and work-
ing conditions of the police during their interaction, which may lead them to have a
more favourable opinion of the police in this regard (Table 3.21).
Statement: The police in your locality understand the issues that impact the
community
When asked whether they thought the police in their locality understand the issues
that impact the community, those that agreed with this statement the most
were 70+
years in Delhi (62%), Mumbai (76%), and Bengaluru (71%), and 21-30 years
in
Chennai (87%) (Table 3.22),
In Mumbai (69%), Bengaluru (62%), and Delhi (60%), men agreed
with this
statement more than women. In Chennai, women (82%) agreed more with
this state-
ment than men (Table 3,23),
‘e

7 3 Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisation Survey 79

—_—

7
t

know

esate
nor| je
10.
ie
1s 2
know
Agreeae
oe
ie
7
i1
Disagree
disagree
Don’t
agree |
is
is|je
ie
ois
26fk

agree
nordisagree
Neither

tain?) .
4 ae) ( Gia
el
||ee
ie tek woes! ary Sa Bey R Don’t
r|
| |know
|Agree
Disagree
>
MEGS oltts"> ose
= 7 af ae

42)
80 N. Sinha and A. Durani

Table 3.20 Opinion by gender (%)

Delhi x . | Chennai_ a Bengaluru id _Mumbai_
Gender ~ |Male |Female |Male |Female |Male |'Female | Male |Female
Agree )
Disagree 28
Neither agree norr disagree |
Don’ t know
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Table 3.21 Opinion by victim versus non-victim tic (sample level)

Debi
en Non- Non-
| Mumbai
_Non-
Victim | victim Victim | victim Victim | victim Victim victim

Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree
Don’t know
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

In all four cities, the non-victim respondents agreed with this statement more
than respondents who had been a victim of any of the surveyed crimes (Delhi 58%,
Mumbai 70%, Chennai 80%, and Bengaluru 58%). This seems to indicate that the
opinion about whether the police in their locality understand the issues that impact
the community may decrease once they interact with them (Table 3.24).
Statement: The police will treat you respectfully when you reach out to them
When asked whether the police will treat you respectfully when you reach out to
them, in Delhi, those between 51 and 70 years (62%) agreed with the statement the
most. And those above 61 years in Mumbai (75%), and 70+ years in Chennai (86%)
and Bengaluru (62%) agreed with the statement the most. This indicates that senior
and elderly citizens have an amicable relationship with the police (Table 3.25).
In Delhi (61%) and Bengaluru (47%), men agreed with this statement more than
women. In Chennai, women (78%) agreed with this statement more than men. In
Mumbai the proportions were the same (71%) (Table 3.26).
In all four cities, the non-victim respondents agreed with this statement more
than respondents who had been a victim of any of the surveyed crimes (Delhi 59%,
Mumbai 72%, Chennai 77%, and Bengaluru 46%). This seems to indicate that the
opinion about whether the police will treat you respectfully when they reach out to
them may decrease once they interact with them (Table 3. 27).

Statement: The police are doing a good job at maintaining a safe environment
in the city
When asked whether the police are doing a good job at maintaining a safe environ-
ment in the city, those who were above the age of 70 years in Delhi (63%), Mumbai
 3 Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisation Survey 81

‘ 4
ace. | *
“an :
a 7 p
‘*
| > (Reems SM g

asta lass ne
io soa |

a A342t) Waal

aaa
7 ages: we thet

ro
. ed
lt
\ hal stee on
82 N. Sinha and A. Durani

Table 3.23 Opinion by gender (%)

Delhi [Chennai sid Bengaluru |Mumbai_
Gender | Male | Female ‘|Male |Female | Male |Female |Male | Female
Agree _ aw 54 69
Disagree 22 |24 17 [1s
13 Te 10 (13 [10 fit
7 —

Neither agree nor

or disagree $$ — —_ = —— = —————

Don’ t know 10 5 3 6 \9 4 6
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Table 3.24 Opinion by victim versus non-victim (%) (sample level)

Non- Non-
Bengalura | Mumbai
Non- Non-
Victim | victim Victim | victim Victim victim Victim |victim

eT aae
mit
—

Disagree CS
—
ec eae es
elsanae.
Neither agree nor

Don’t know eC ae
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

(85%), and Chennai (89%) agreed with this statement the most. In Bengaluru, those
between 61 and 70 years (73%) agreed with this statement the most. Once again,
senior and elderly citizens seem to have a higher degree of trust in the police’s abil-
ity to maintain a safe environment in the city (Table 3.28).
In Delhi (61%) and Bengaluru (68%), the proportion of men that agreed with this
statement was higher than the proportion of women. In Mumbai (77%) and Chennai
(82%), women agreed with this statement more than men (Table 3.29).
In all four cities, the non-victim respondents agreed with this statement more
than the respondents who had been a victim of any of the surveyed crimes (Delhi
59%, Mumbai 78%, Chennai 80%, and Bengaluru 63%). This seems to indicate that
the opinion about whether the police are doing a good job at maintaining a safe
environment in the city may decrease once they face a crime or interact with
the police (Table 3.30).

Statement: Police presence in a secluded area makes you feel safe

When asked whether police presence in a secluded area makes them feel safe, in
Mumbai (87%) and Chennai (89%), those above the age of 70 years agreed with this
statement the most. In Bengaluru, those between 61 and 70 years agreed with this
statement the most (75%). In Delhi, those that agreed with this statement the most
were between 51 and 70 years (65%). This seems to indicate that elderly people and
senior citizens welcome the presence of police in secluded areas to give them a
sense of security (Table 3.31).
In Delhi (66%) and Bengaluru (65%), the proportion of men who agreed with
this statement was higher than the proportion of women. In Mumbai (82%) and
Chennai (77%), women agreed with this statement more than men (Table 3.32).
 3 Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisation Survey 83

know4
Don’t 4

Neither iz 12
oe:

Mumbai

Don’t
nor|Agree
agree
know
Disagree
disagree

pros
bi. We) PS wer.

i aoe eet?! filing

ee esnce wernt Labi
aie aay — ; Bi EK
= —_ C q \) ijt} ~|Qloco|] \| h tases » <(.
> < ; ‘
PAT
Wd a P= ON > 34

HO.
84 N. Sinha and A. Durani

Table 3.26 Opinion by gender (%)

| Chennai i | Bengaluru a [Mumbai
Gender Male | Female | Male| Female |Male Female

Agree
Disagree
Neither agree |norr disagree
Don’t know
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Table 3.27 Opinion by victim versus non-victim tb (sample level)

Werf tt | Bengaluru |
Mumbai
eS Non- |Non-
Victim | victim Victim | victim el victim victim

ii
Disagree eae
iat a ea ae
Neither agree nor
disagree
Don’t know Cee me Le
Source: SATARC a IDFC Institute, 2017

In all four cities, the non-victim respondents agreed with this statement more
than the respondents who had been a victim of any of the surveyed crimes (63% in
Delhi, 82% in Mumbai, 76% in Chennai, and 64% in Bengaluru). This seems to
indicate that the opinion about whether presence in a secluded area makes you feel
safe may decrease once they interact with them or face a crime (Table 3.33).
The survey also asked respondents about their comfort in approaching a male or
female officer to report an issue. In Delhi, the proportion of people who were more
comfortable approaching a male officer (36%), female officer (30%) or indifferent
(34%), were approximately evenly divided. In Mumbai (69%) and Chennai (55%),
most people were indifferent towards the gender of the officer. In Bengaluru, most
felt comfortable approaching a male officer (51%) as compared to a female officer
(8%) (Table 3.34).
When analysed by age, similar results are seen in Delhi with the proportions
almost evenly split across all age ranges. In Mumbai, those between 21-30 years and
51-60 years feel most comfortable approaching a male officer (21% each), those
between 18 and 20 years feel most comfortable approaching a female officer (15%),
and those above 70 years are most indifferent (83%). In Chennai, those above
70 years (45%) feel most comfortable approaching a male officer, those between 18
and 20 years (17%) feel more comfortable approaching a female officer, and those
between 61 and 70 years are most indifferent (62%). In Bengaluru, the youngest
(18-30 years) and oldest (70+ years) are most comfortable approaching a male
officer (53%) as compared to the others, those between 51 and 60 years are most
comfortable approaching a female officer (10%) and those between 61 and 70 years
are most indifferent (48%) (Table 3.35).
3 Safety Trends and Reportiing o f Crime (SATARC): : A Crime Pe 85
: Victimisation Survey

+ eres? mt

Phe seem cssre) tik

Mate t3 4 yor
 86 N. Sinha and A. Durani

Table 3.29 Opinion by gender (%)

{Delhi ==——«| Chennai [Bengaluru |Mumbai
Gender |Male | Female [Male TFemale | Male | Female |Male |Female
Agree _ ee 61 . Ss] 77 82 68 {59 76 =#=|77
Disagree E 123 9 6 £|2 | 22 e|is 182
Neither agree nor disagree [14 | 12 8 10 |8 ae 9 ‘8 |8
Don’t know 3 7 5 3 5 8 2 |3
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Table 3.30 Opinion by victim versus non-victim (%) (sample level)

Bengaluru Mumbai

ilar tin ae |oi AVs

Non-
Victim | victim Victim | victim ictim | victim Victim victim

ieee |< Oe (ee ae (a ee

Disagree 23
disagree
ss a a el eee Cece Oe i CE
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

In Delhi, the majority of men (58%) are more comfortable approaching a male
officer and the majority of women are comfortable approaching a female officer
(59%). In Mumbai, while the majority are indifferent, there is a preference for men
(26%) and women (21%) to approach officers of their same gender. In Bengaluru
and Chennai, men (54% and 45%, respectively) and women (48% and 24%, respec-
tively) feel more comfortable approaching male officers (Table 3.36).
At the sample level, when analysed by victims versus non-victims of the sur-
veyed crimes, the proportions were once again almost evenly divided in Delhi and
most respondents were indifferent in Mumbai and Chennai. In Bengaluru, while
50% of the respondent victims were indifferent, 43% felt more comfortable
approaching a male officer. Among the non-victim respondents, the majority (51%)
felt more comfortable approaching a male officer (Table 3.37).
There is often a preference among people for approaching a male officer as
they feel he may be better suited for solving their problems as policing is per-
ceived to be a more physical profession.? Going forward, if such questions are
disaggregated by type of crime, police task, or some other criteria, public percep-
tions of female officers can also be tracked over time, along with any shifting
trends therein. Such results can be useful inputs to build confidence in the public
towards women officers.

*CSDS (2018).
3. Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisation Survey 87
88 N. Sinha and A. Durani

Table 3.32 Opinion by gender (%)

' Mumbai
Gender
Agree
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Don’t know
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Table 3.33 Opinion by victim versus non-victim (%) (sample level)

Delhi Bengaluru Mumbai
Non- Non- Non-
Victim | victim Victim victim

Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree
Don’t know
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Table 3.34 When reporting a complaint/crime, would you be more comfortable approaching a
male or female officer? (%)

Male officer
Female officer
Indifferent
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Safety Perceptions and Adaptive Behaviours

Our understanding of safety perceptions is limited since it is primarily informed by

anecdotal evidence rather than data. These are important parameters not captured by
any official records. The survey asked respondents about their perceptions of safety
and behavioural adaptations as a result of these perceptions. The idea behind assess-
ing perceptions and attitudinal data is to see how abstract concepts can be quantified
for policy analysis and track how societies adapt and shift behaviours with improve-
ment or deterioration in their sense of security.
We used three ways to gauge a person’s perception of safety. First, we directly
asked respondents whether they felt crime is a serious problem in their area, whether
they thought that the crime levels in their local area had gone up, down, or stayed
the same over the last few years, and the sources for their impression about crime in
their city. We present the data on perceptions by city, age, and gender for these
questions.
3 Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisation Survey 89

Bengaluru
Male
Female

|
officer
Indifferent

2
5
€a)

fEig 2Ea|lslalae ll s
la(e|.
90 N. Sinha and A. Durani

Table 3.36 Opinion by gender (%)

Gender
Delhi — ihe
Male /Female _
{Mumbai
Male | Female
[Chennai
Male |Female
[Bengalur
|Male
Male officer
Female officer | 12
Indifferent | 40
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Table 3.37 Opinion by victim versus non-victim (%) (sample level)

Chennai ‘Bengaluru
Victim |victim Victim | victim Victim | victim Victim | victim

SS SE ane =
Male officer 252 ANS 43. |51
officer
Indifferent [37 [33 |74 {68 {62 [55 50.41
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Table 3.38 Perception by city (%)

Perception Bengaluru
Serious problem Sis eGs & wie ed 21
Somewhat of a problem but not very big Ve ee aa 29
Not much of a problem 76 41
Don’t know 11 8
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Question: How serious is the problem of crime in your area?

About half the population in Delhi (51%) perceived crime to be a serious problem.
A much smaller percentage of the population in Bengaluru (21%) and Mumbai
(16%) viewed crime to be a serious problem. As per the survey, a small percentage
of the population (6%) viewed crime to be a serious problem in Chennai. In fact,
about 76% of the population perceived crime as not much of a problem in Chennai
(Table 3.38; Fig. 3.3).
Amongst the age groups, the population in the youngest age group of 18-20 years
felt crime was a serious problem in Delhi. In Chennai, Mumbai, and Bengaluru,
those in the same group felt it was not much of a problem (Table 3.39).
Almost half of males and females felt that crime was a serious problem in Delhi. In
the case of Chennai, almost three fourths of males and females felt that it was not
much of a problem. In Bengaluru and Mumbai, large proportions of males and females
were of the same opinion and did not feel crime was much of a problem (Table 3.40).
Question: Do you think that crime levels in your local area have gone up,
down, or stayed the same over the last few years?
We then asked people if they thought that crime levels in their local area had gone
up, down, or stayed the same over the last few years. In Delhi, 46% thought that
crime had gone up in the last few years, whereas 42% in Chennai and 39% in
 3 Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisation Survey
9]

100 5% i

13% 1% 8%
90
20%

BO beg Serious
. problem
70 41%
. a oe S “cigaat a
zi
24% 6 of a problem

90 Not much of
a problem
76%
50
i Don’t know

40 BA
: m 29%
30 26% hy
51%
20

10 16% 8% 21%

0 5%

Delhi Mumbai Chennai Bengaluru

Note: The results are presented at the population level. Perceptions are presented by city
as a percentage
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Fig. 3.3 How serious is the problem of crime in your area?

Mumbai thought it had gone down. 42% in Bengaluru thought that crime levels had
stayed the same (Table 3.41).
Over half of those in the youngest age group in Delhi felt that crime had gone up
in their area. Data from Chennai showed the opposite. 62% in the age group of
18-20 years in Chennai felt that crime had come down in their area. In Mumbai,
43% of people in the age group of 41-50 years felt that crime levels had come down.
In Bengaluru, almost half in the age group of 61-70 years felt that crime levels had
stayed the same (Table 3.42). Men and women shared similar perceptions about
crime levels, across all the surveyed cities (Table 3.43).
Question: What are sources for your impression about crime in your city?
Following this, we tried to assess the sources from which people form an impression
about crime in their city. This was a multiple-choice question. In Delhi (74%),
Chennai (86%), and Bengaluru (75%), television programmes were the top sources
- from where people formed their impression about crime in their city. In Mumbai,
 N. Sinha and A. Durani
92

Table 3.39 Perception by age (%)

City 20 30 40 50 60 70 70+
Serious problem Pete 49 [49 [47 [48 | 52
Mumbai 16 | 7) \i7
4 7_ [12
18 | 21
uru
Bengal| 24 |20 |16 | 30
“Somewhat of a problem but not 24 26 14

very big 21 28 |20

[Chennai [7 |10_|s [e |s__|8 [2
30 |41
Not much ofaproblem 14 |19. [23 _|20 |. {21 12
45
Chennai |80 [80 [76 |74 |77__|69 71
48 (20
Don’t know Delhi [5 [7 |4 [4 |e {5 _ Is
12 18
(Chenn ai_
[7 [12 [8
[14_[is [is 1s
[Benga luru]s
|10 |7__|6 (9/6 __—*|10
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Table 3.40 Perception by gender (%)

Gender
Delhi_ __|Che nnai [Bengaluru |Mumbai
Male |Female | Male |Female |Male |Female | Male |Female
Serious problem so [si 4 [Ss f20 22 a6 [15
Somewhat of a problem but not 23 es |I fade 8S 24
very big
Not much of a problem 43 139 2orgAS al 47
Don’t know ER CE CE EC EP Ce ee
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Table 3.41 Perceptions by city (%)

Perception Delhi___|Mumbai__|Chennai_| Bengaluru
Up situa
Down
Stayed the same
Weis aes
Don’t know
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017
 3 Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisation Survey 93

Table 3.42 Perceptions by age (%)

City 18-20 | 21-30 131-40 |41-50 |51-60 |61-70 |70+
Up Dethi _|54 ~~ =[45 [45 [45 [46 [47 [as
Mumba [14 /13,s«faa4—sf'3S—s*f' 3 15 14
‘Chennai 7 3 5 [6 {5 10 —«|8
________|Bengauru |23 [20 [i[21_
g [21 [is [16
Down Delhi 136 SS as9 S04 16
[Mumbai [37 [37 (39 (43 (37. (39 ‘(43
se
Chennai [62 |40 434240
[Bengaluru (33
[4032
[28 [26 [27 122 aS 190*
Stayed the same |Delhi ae a Ey ae [30_ | 29
‘Mumbai 31 3030 |
‘Chennai [25 (45 ’ [36
Bengaluru
Don’t know

adi
wD, «6S ad sueshy Rone
Bengauw [10 [13 [9 3 7B
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Table 3.43 Perceptions by gender (%)

Bengaluru
‘Male [Female [Male [Female [Male [Female [Male |Female
CC CC CO 7
7 CEN 7a TR 6
faa_|2o fas fat 4s fat (3030
aC ST Re TO a
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

most people formed their impression from word of mouth (71%). The second most
cited source of information was word of mouth in Delhi (72%), newspaper in
Chennai (80%) and Bengaluru (66%), and newspaper and television programmes in
Mumbai (both at 64%) (Table 3.44).
Television programmes, newspapers, word of mouth and relatives’/friends’
experiences were the top sources of information on crime across age groups in the
four cities. Personal experience was amongst the top sources of information across
age groups in Delhi (Table 3.45).
Television programmes and word of mouth were the top sources of information
about crime for males and females across the four cities (Table 3.46).
Second, we asked about people’s worries about taking certain actions.
94 N. Sinha and A. Durani

Table 3.44 Perception by city (%)

Source Delhi Mumbai | ‘Chennai | Bengaluru
Personal experience _
Relatives’ /friends’ experience 161. ‘147 SL) hip 63
Newspaper 51 64 80 | 66
Television programmes 86 |75
Radio 20 [30 oa
Internet 13 f| 17
Information from police 27 |25
Information from resident associations 34 1S
Word of mouth

Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Question: After what time do you start worrying about the safety of a female
member of your household who may be outside home unaccompanied?
The survey found that post 9 pm, 87% of people in Delhi started worrying about a
female household member who was outside the home unaccompanied. The percent-
ages were lower in Bengaluru (54%), Chennai (48%), and Mumbai (30%). By
11 pm, about 97% of the population in Delhi, 89% in Bengaluru, 90% in Chennai,
and 76% in Mumbai were worried if a female household member was outside home
alone (Table 3.47; Fig. 3.4).
Breaking it further down, we found that all age groups were equally concerned
about a female member being outside the home unaccompanied after 8 pm in Delhi,
after 10 pm in Mumbai and Chennai (Table 3.48).
Both men and women seemed equally worried about the female household mem-
ber being outside home unaccompanied after evening (Table 3.49).

Question: After what time do you start worrying about the safety of a male
member of your household who may be outside home unaccompanied?
Concerns about safety extended to men as well. By 11 pm, 95% of people in Delhi
started worrying about a male household member who was outside home unaccom-
panied, followed by Bengaluru (83%), Chennai (84%), and Mumbai (60%)
(Table 3.50; Fig. 3.5).
Breaking the time bands further, in Delhi, Bengaluru, and Chennai, people across
age groups were most concerned about a male member being outside home unac-
companied after 10 pm. In Mumbai, most people across age groups were worried
about safety after 11 pm (Table 3.51).
Almost 51% of females in Chennai were worried about a male member being
outside home unaccompanied after 10 pm. There was an appreciable increase in
worry across Cities and gender after 10 pm vis-a-vis 9 pm (Table 3.52).
We asked respondents whether they felt safe walking in their own neighbour-
hood during the day or night, in their own homes during the same time
frame.
 3 Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisation Survey 95

Table 3.45 Perception by age (%)

fe Goeeilsi— |4i- |5i- lei

|City 20 30 40 50 60 70 70+
Personal experience Delhi 61 57 Oe 55zt 58 58
4 |60 / 67
‘Mumbai | 34 37 a8 136... 137 34 28
r
|Chennai
‘mc ee Fh oC 7
| 33 37 39. |40 ~=/|31 =| 43 21
‘Bengaluru|29 [32 [36 |38 |36 [42 (57
Relatives’ /friends’ experience [Delhi | 56 | 59 61 |64 64 165 [63
[Mumbai [44 |50 [47 [47 [49 [43 [38
Chennai |64 |59 |64 [68 |64 “Tes fer
_|Bengaluru/65 [61 [62 |63 [66 |62 |70
Newspaper Delhi 154 52 44 45
Mumbai |67 |65 |66 |65 |63 [57 |54
‘Chenna
Bengaluru |69
[84 [a4
i_|82__ |77 [
59
8 3 _ | 7 5 [67
74
Television programmes 71 72
‘Mumbai [68 [65 [63 [64 [62 [59 [64
‘Chennai (92 [85 [86 [87 [86 [85/81
79 _|80
Radio Delhi [12 [sia [ia [15 [12 [4
Mumbai [14 [13 [14 [ur [1 [9__[ 10
3 [ul
52
imernet Deihi_[28_[2¢ [is [is [13 [10 [1
Mumbai [30 [23 [17 [12 [88 (8
[Chennai [iio isa [128
Bengalura]19[17 [16 [18 [ie [23_[13
information from police ‘(Delhi [11 [10 [12_|11_[8 [10 _|10
[Mumbai [26 [27 [28 [28 [26 _[25_|22
i
23 {22
Information from resident ‘Delhi (36 |34 [34 |36 [38 |36 | 35
associations 29
32
Bengaluru|16 |12_ {15 [19 {17/16 15
Word ofmouth Delhi |71_-|73__—*4|71_—«4( 73747469
Mumbai |72__ [69 |71__|71_(|72__(|73_—(|73
Chennai (59 _|57__|59_ [63 |56__[67_—|40
Bengaluru |68_|63|65__|62__|70_—(|73__|62
Other a Rs SD CE Ee
Mumbai [4 [5 [5 |4_—[6_—s[S__—S
oe a | CS CO Ee Oe
Bengaluru|7_ [5 [5 [6 |S [67
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017
 96 N. Sinha and A. Durani

Table aa a6 Perception by gender (%)

Delhi ~ | Chennai | Bengaluru Mumbai
fe aoe Male |Female |Male |Female | Male | Female |Male Female
Personal experience EM ESSER ETE:| ES Ee 38
Relatives’/friends’ experience 62.159 |seer. jane] 48
Newspaper
Television programmes
[a7 lao a0
eae ee a
Lor [es —]o6 |e 62 | 66
Radio 3
Interne
Information from police a ee
2014
re me |
Information from resident 34 34 35 32 31
associations

Word of mouth 74 [71__—«(53_

6466 471i
Other Ce a ee es ae 7
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Table 3.47 Perception by city (%)

Time [Deh [Mumbai [Chennai |Bengaluru

By 7pm eT a eee 16
By9 pm SI enerEme
By Il pm Cea MTT (Rr [
Le ie Cya Co n
Ca
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

100%
gdbs 25%

80% 20%
70%
60% 15%
50%
40%
10%
30%
20% 5%
10%

oe
By 7pm By
3? 9pm
@ ts
By li pm Always safe

M Delhi §| Mumbai [| Chennai © Bengaluru

Note: The results are presented at the population level. Perceptions are presented by
city
as a percentage.
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Fig. 3.4 After what time do you start worrying about the safety of a female
household who may be outside home unaccompanied? 4 member of your
 3 Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisation Survey 97

Table 3.48 Perception by age (%)

[City —s- [ 18-20 [21-30 [31-40 [41-50 [51-60 |61-70 | 70+
After 7 pm ER a
Mumbai |2 (3. #«+(3 ~~ (3 5 6 3
ta is: | «x,\461 Ie E 4
[Bengaluru [19 [18 (17 (15 ‘(is {10 |2
After 8 pm Delhi 34. (38 137 oaias. 144... 146.
Mom (12 +%$1) +%|1 wo is (slo
Chennai [12 |12 ea fa ee, ip
Bengaluru |22 | 20 [19 1 SS
After 9 pm Delhi 3a (29 +25 26 29 2 123.
Mumbai ia ES) ceeaG = as 14 B
[Chennai [31 [27 [a8 a8 [27 [2s
ss ise
Afr 10pm [Deh [77 917 Js 15 fe
sonal [at fad eas 20
Chennai__| 37 Ea Cc -
[sae [24
[Bengalura[16 [18 [17
After 11 pm a a
Mumbai [21 [23 |21_ [2522 :
a ae 3 fe
= FC EC x
After midnight ea an
Mumbai

Alwaysfeelsafe {Delhi {1 {1st ft ft

Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Table 3.49 Perception by gender (%)

Delhi [Chennai [Bengaluru | Mumbai

Gender ‘Male [Female |Male [Female |Male [Female [Male |Female
a esCC Fc OC
After 8 pm Ea EG be CS 2 a
After9pm [2926/29
a7 [9 fi9—~te [6
0d oC EC CE
After 11 ~ 8 CG SE CA a OS
a CS COE RE ES CO
16g Batcles GDS" DS CE CO |2 ee CO
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017
 98 N. Sinha and A. Durani

Table 3.50 Perception by city (%)

Time ‘Delhi —«Y| Mumbai ~ |Chennai | Bengaluru

Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

100%
25%
90%
80% 20%
70%
60% 15%
50%
40% 10%
30%
20% 5%
10%

By
6
7pm By
6 9pm
@
By llpm Always safe

@ Delhi ©§ Mumbai Chennai — Bengaluru

Note: The results are presented at the population level. Perceptions are presented by city
as a percentage.
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Fig. 3.5 After what time do you start worrying about the safety of a male member of your house-
hold who may be outside home unaccompanied?

Question: After what time in the evening would you worry about safety while
walking alone in your neighbourhood?
In Delhi, by 9 pm, 63% of people mentioned that they started worrying about their
safety while walking alone in their own neighbourhood. The corresponding num-
bers were 41% in Bengaluru, 23% in Chennai, and 14% in Mumbai. By 11 pm, 94%
in Delhi were worried about their safety while walking alone in their neighbo
ur-
hood, followed by 84% in Bengaluru, 81% in Chennai, and 60% in Mumbai. When
asked whether they always felt safe, i.e. did not worry at any point of time,
the fig-
ures were 23% in Mumbai, 16% in Chennai, 12% in Bengaluru, and only
3% in
Delhi (Table 3.53).
Looking at the data by age group for each city, we found that people acros
s age
groups were worried about walking alone in the neighbourhood from 8 pm
onwards
 3 Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisation Survey 99

Table 3.51 Perception by age (%)

|City —Ss- [18-20 | 21-30 [31-40 [41-50 |5i-60 |61-70 |70+
After 7 pm Delhi a a | |) “12 i: ae
Meet (2 =#(1 => ii |i [2 \2
Chennai ; Lat Perk We ic Aer! RZ rr |> i
es Bengaluru 3 es. 8G i 14 , ‘8 {2 li
After 8 pm Delhi __|i4 aS ae 13 Be. |i 13
Mumbai _ = 14 Se |4 3 [3 , WA
Chennai 13 5 13 3 3 3 a) 14 :

After 9 pm
oe Sa25 OF26
7 fom
Lar i
es ae 11
Sg aa Ca a a a i
After10pm {Delhi —s [35 [33,3835 (34 [34
Mumbai [19 [17
[19201920
[Chennai [42,46 [49 [43 [48 [5 :
[Bengaluru [31 (33, [30 [29 [26 [25
After11pm et ee 20
[29t [3230
Manba [os [50 [a5 —[
Chennai 16 {i458 te fa =
Bengaluru |19 |20|2221 [25_| 28
After midnight a CA a a aC CC
Mumbai (22/22/2018 19/20
LE ae Ce Oe a | ‘
Alwaysfeelsafe [Delhi [1
[2,2ft 22

Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Table 3.52 Perception by gender (%)

? Delhi
[Chennai [Bengalura | Mumbai
| Gender ‘Male [Female [Male [Female |Male [Female _|Male |Female
Aftertpm. {20 (2 fot i Eaeaets| ae
After8 prt 2. Ue ee CP Ce eed CO
Afir9pm ——«[23,— [26 [1916 S876
Afier10pm —*(|34_— [36 (43 [5132271819
After 11 pm 23__fiy__ igs se 2
feelsafe [2 [i _—s[i4_— fio. to [6 S237
100 N. Sinha and A. Durani

Always feel safe

Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Table 3.54 Perceptions by age (%)

61-70_[ 70s
Matern | Delta. 9-10, — 8. ee, 9 OE
Ciiennain “p20 a ee de
ST a ES EO ES |
After 8 pm 27 {2327123
Ce ee ee ae ee ee
;Chetinal..-[3; |. [4} 25) Se, Se
Bengaluru [17 [15 {1613 10918
After 9 pm ‘Delhi —-| 29 28 27 28 26
pnmbal.. fo. “8. jo 8) _ SS
[Chennai |17__—jt6_ [20206 [22 |22
Bengaluru [25 [25 [20 [18 [155
Afr 10pm [Delhi[18__|16 [18 (17__—*(18_‘[17__|20
Mumbai |19
[1819's fi9, [2089
as [464s (a7_—«dao stat _—*da
26 28 [29
Afterlipm |Dethi_— [13 [14 [staf
ta
[Mumbai |29 [2827 27,2926 [29
(Chennai [16 {12 fists
[2 fis [8
Bengaluru |i4
[14179 [23 aa
Aftermidnight [Delhi |2 [4 [4 fe “Ola eet
Mumbai
[19 [18 [18 (17-115 —~(16 ‘(ni
Chennal [300 (5
(S42 2
Bengaluru [4 (3 [444
Alwaysfeelsafe Dei [1___[3__(3.-(2-*+(3—=4i3
Sid
Mumbai |i9 [21 [22 [24 2a 26 [32
Chennai [14 fie [126223/26
Bengaluru jit [io [12 fis fi2 faa
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

in Delhi. There is a substantial jump in people being worried after 10 pm vis-a-vis

9 pm in Chennai (Table 3.54).
There was no appreciable difference in perception between male and females
when asked if they worried about walking alone in their neighbourhood after eve-
ning (Table 3.55).
 3 Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisation Survey 101

Table 3.55 Perceptions by gender (%)

“a |Delhi Chennai |Bengaluru Mumbai
Gender ‘Male | Female | Male ‘Female > |Male |Female | Male | Female
‘After
(8 7pm
|10 11 ee ae
After8pm |23 |30 [3 ‘5 |3 5
After9pm ——[26—sj29sdfsSsi 8 '8 9
Afier10pm [18 [16 (36 —*(49 SS aeFe
eeetipe ji? jG 630
‘Aftermidnight |4 /2 15 17 | 17
Always feel safe ae , ‘2 20. ‘== Obs as py Pee:
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Table 3.56 Perception by city (%)

73

| don’t know
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Table 3.57 Perception by age (%)

61-70
Yes 74
[Mumbai _[e4 [as [ea [es ass
Chennai [85 (86 ‘(79

Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Question: Do you feel safe when you are alone at home during the day?
In Mumbai 85% and in Chennai 83% of people felt safe when they were alone at
home during the day. Just under three fourths of people in Delhi and Bengaluru
(both at 73%) felt safe when they were home alone during the day (Table 3.56).
No particular age group or gender felt vulnerable at home during the day in any
city (Tables 3.57 and 3.58).
aee
J
102 N. Sinha and A. Durani

Table 3.58 Perception by gender (%)

a. TDelhi ——~*(|Chennai_ Bengaluru BTS Mumbai =
“Gender Female

Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Table 3.59 Perception by city (%)

I don’t know
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Table 3.60 Perception by age (%)

61-70 70+
Yes Dei _|ss__[s2__(s7__is7_—*is6__—fel
Mumbai [75 (77 [7 [79 (80 ‘(83
85
Bengaluru [70 [67 (68 (70-(73__|75
[Dethi [4446 fat‘far_—‘faa__|37

Don’t know

Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Question: Do you feel safe when you are alone at home at night?
We then asked whether they felt safe at home alone at night. In Chennai (81%) and
Mumbai (78%), more than three fourths of people felt safe while home alone at
night. In Bengaluru, only 68% felt safe alone at home at night and the number was
lower in Delhi at 56% (Table 3.59).
In Delhi, more than half the population across all age groups felt safe being alone
at home at night. In the case of Chennai, around 80% across age groups felt safe
alone at home at night. Encouragingly, over 90% of those in the age group of 70+
years felt safe in Chennai. In Bengaluru, those in the age group of 21-30 years and
31-40 years were most worried about their safety when alone at home at night. The
sense of safety was higher amongst those in the age brackets of 50+ years in Mumbai
(Table 3.60).
 3 Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisation Sut vey 103

Table 3.61 Perception by gender (%)

/ Delhi Chennai Bengaluru Mumbai
Gender . Male _ Female — Male Female |Male Female Male Female
Yes 61 | 49 2 ee ReeCe CO
No 37 —s«—«S|49 202/15 24 31 18 24
Don’tknow |2 12 3 16 3 2
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Table 3.62 Perception by city (%)

Time ' Delhi Mumbai [Chennai —-—«*(| Bengaluru
By7 pm \+ 72d 14Ca? “Sai 5
Sa as he [28 ae =] 48 :
Bylipm a. i. Ta ee
Alwaysfeelsafe [2 £117 | [13 = 8
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

In Delhi, 61% male and 49% female felt safe alone at home at night. In Bengaluru,
66% women felt safe at home at night. The proportions of those who felt safe were
higher in Chennai and Mumbai (Table 3.61).
We also asked questions about the time after which people worry about with-
drawing money from an ATM and using public transport.
Question: After what time in the evening would you worry about safety while
withdrawing money alone from your neighbourhood ATM?
In Delhi, by 9 pm, 55% of people mentioned that they would worry about their
safety while withdrawing money from their neighbourhood ATM. The correspond-
ing numbers were 48% in Bengaluru, 28% in Chennai, and 14% in Mumbai. By
11 pm, 83% in Delhi and Bengaluru would worry about their safety while with-
drawing money from their neighbourhood ATM, followed by 79% in Chennai and
55% in Mumbai. When asked whether they always felt safe, i.e. did not worry at any
point of time, the figures were 17% in Mumbai, 13% in Chennai, 8% in Bengaluru,
and only 2% in Delhi (Table 3.62; Fig. 3.6).
No distinct trend could be seen by age groups in any city (Table 3.63).
Looking at the issue from a gender lens, around 43% of women compared to
36% of men in Chennai were worried about withdrawing cash from an ATM after
10 pm. In Delhi, 20% of men and 24% of women were worried after 8 pm. In
Bengaluru, 23% of men were worried about withdrawing cash from an ATM after
9 pm compared to 20% of women. In Mumbai, a much lower percentage of men and
women were worried before 10 pm (Table 3.64).
Question: After what time in the evening would you worry about safety when
travelling alone by public transport?
By 9 pm, 55% of people in Delhi mentioned that they would worry about their
safety while travelling alone by public transport. The corresponding numbers were
 N. Sinha and A. Durani

pon Live. Sle, ete

eo be "ee Gu as agen
“< ee ee ae
By 7pm By 9pm By llpm Always safe

@ Delhi © Mumbai © Chennai Bengaluru

Note: The results are presented at the population level. Perceptions are presented by
city as a percentage.
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Fig. 3.6 After what time in the evening would you worry about safety while withdrawing money
alone from your neighbourhood ATM?

40% in Bengaluru, 23% in Chennai, and 12% in Mumbai. By 11 pm, 96% in Delhi
worry about their safety while travelling alone by public transport, followed by 84%
in Bengaluru, 81% in Chennai and 60% in Mumbai. When asked whether they
always felt safe, i.e. did not worry at any point of time, the figures were 22% in
Mumbai, 14% in Chennai, 12% in Bengaluru, and only 2% in Delhi (Table 3.65).
In Chennai, people got worried across all age groups after 10 pm. The youngest
and the oldest were most concerned about using public transport after evening.
Between 44% and 48% were worried in the age groups 18-20 years, 21-30 years,
and 31-40 years. Similarly, between 45% and 47% of those above the age of
61 years were worried about using public transport after evening in Chennai. A
large segment of population (18-26%) across all age groups always felt safe while
using public transport in the evening in Mumbai (Table 3.66).
The difference in perception about safety while using public transport after eve-
ning grew after 10 pm. This could be seen in Delhi and Chennai. In Mumbai, the
difference grew after 11 pm (Table 3.67).
We also asked which type of public transport people felt safe using during the
day. This was a multiple-choice question. In Delhi, the most preferred mode of
transport was metro/local train (80%), in Mumbai (95%) and Bengaluru (97%) it
 3 Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisation Survey 105

Table 3.63 Perception by age wi)

‘City | 18-20 [21-30 [31-40 |41-50 |51-60 [61-70 _|70+
‘After7pm [Delhi | 11 i. 2S CT ey
‘Mumbai |2 2 1 Fc 12 2 2
Chennai 13 1 | | a; 3 12 12
q —, | Bengaluru ‘16 : 10 lg \¢ 12 16 6
After 8 pm {Delhi [2s [23 |e jm jis : |20 |16
“Mumbai 6 4 4 4 14 8
‘Chennai atae TY ’ 9: 23 ae 14
ere et er
| Bengatura [19s =i fs__|1s__ [20
After 9 pm [Delhi 19 [2221 [17 |20 ee 143.
‘Mumbai ee | a se ioc
Chennai 20 | 18 22 23 17 21 13
Bengaluru |25 |23 |23 {19 aa te 46
After 10 pm Delhi a eS 22 21 32
Mumbai | 19 7 orae ee 10
Chennai__ 39 45 |34
Bengaluru | 18 rn Te EF OR 4
Afertipm [Deki [6 [6 [6 [6 [6 (7_ |9
(Chennai [i [10 [1__fis 9 |e [a
Bengatuw [16 [12 [15 [418 _ |1s_ |29
Aer midnight a a
Cae
2 a a
Aiwaysfeelsafe [Dei [1_[2~+4(2—~«di2 dst id
Mamba [15 __i7_‘|e_fie a‘ [20
(Chennai [i542 iis ef
Bengaturw [7 [8 [9 fro |e [612
Notapphicable [Deki [12_ 3s[3-00
Mumbai [10 10_[10 ur‘? an
(Chennai [5_|7 [4 [4s ia
Begs [4 [3 [#3
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

was local bus, and in Chennai it was shared auto (96%). This was followed by auto
in Delhi (77%) and Bengaluru (91%), metro/local train in Mumbai (90%), and local
bus in Chennai (95%). The least preferred mode of transport was non-radio (or
other) taxi services in Delhi (22%), Bengaluru (38%), and Chennai (61%), and
radio taxi services in Mumbai (46%) (Table 3.68).
— In a perfectly safe environment, the answers to these questions would be that
people are not worried at all.
Third, we attempted to assess the precautions that people take to stay safe. As a
result of poor perceptions of safety, people tend to adopt behavioural changes to
 106 N. Sinha and A. Durani

Table 3.64 Perception by gender (%)

| Delhi [Chennai ——S*«|{ Bengaluru [Mumbai _ae
— seo a pines uti _ " se
| Female
= -
Gender ‘Male |Female |Male |Female |Male |Female | Male
Aftr7pm —_| 13 2 7 (10 | 1 eam
After8pm _— ‘| 20 24 15 6 | 17 18 1.4 15
After9pm {21 19 20 19 23 20 fee 8
After 10 pm 23 21 36 43 23 iz 8 | 18 17
After 11 pm 7h hS +s |b Be 11S laden 24 25
After midnight |2 3 6 16 =| 14
Always feel safe Pie ens 9 [at 7 13
Naapolicible [iu [6 [6 [9 Tw |Om9 aT
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Table 3.65 Perception by city (%)

Time Bengaluru
By 7am SRS 2 ee Oe
By9 pm
By
11 pm
23 40
Always feel safe ae
2 |) as 12
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

keep themselves safe, such as not leaving the house past a certain time. Poor percep-
tions of safety lead households to adopt precautionary measures to overcome the
feeling of insecurity, which in turn impose costs on households and workplaces. It
is critical to acknowledge and address the detrimental impact of such perceptions to
both full and equal participation in civic life or the workforce. Accordingly, we
asked respondents to select the various types of behaviours they adopt to avoid vic-
timisation from a predetermined list. This was a multiple-choice question. The
results are presented at the population level (Tables 3.69, 3.70, and 3.71).
These behavioural changes are symptomatic of a lack of rule of law and must be
addressed to allow citizens freedom of choice and action. A poor perception of
safety has implications for a person’s participation in society. In minor cases, people
may avoid certain areas at certain times of the day, but in extreme cases, they might
withdraw from civic life and the workforce altogether. In the absence of direct data
on safety, crime rate is often viewed as a proxy to gauge safety standards. However,
a low rate of crime does not necessarily imply a high sense of safety.

4 Learning and Way Forward

Evidence-based policymaking has gained momentum globally in the last few

decades. Data collected through surveys such as the National Family Health Surveys
and the Assessment of School Education Report have been instrumental to
i
3 Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisation Surv ey 107

Table 3. “< Pescaytion by age (%)

___|City — —*f 18-20 [21-30 [31-40 [41-50 |5i-60 [61-70 |70+
After 7 pm Delhi | 2 4 ) “14_ 4
‘Mumbai | | th iE 2 2
Chennai | | . 12 2
= | Bengaluru 13 .’ oe 4 4 7 3 =
After 8 pm Delhi___[28 42 __|18 ig [i822 ion Foe
Mumbai |5 3 3 2 3 6 5
Chennai _|4 aes 3. ‘(4 rere
_
[Bengaluru [16 | 15 [2 Tie aa ry
After 9 pm Delhi 32 32 30 31 30 28
Mumbai [@ |e __[7 [7_|s_ |) ii
(Chennai [18 fi? fats
After 10pm = {Delhi 2730 [3532 29_ —*| 43
[Mumbai_|20 [1821 Jat ar Jar 16
Chennai [47 [48
[44138 Leo:
ENO 10 it
Mumbai [29/30 [28 [28 [26 [23 |29
Chennai 14 {12 ie, 209 fa 2
Bengaluru |18 [16/21 [19,2325
Afiermidnight {Delhi |2_ [2/3 438
Mumba [19
| =
Begaus [34isda dd
Aiwaysfeelsafe [Dei [22 ~«422 di? ds
[Mumbai [18 [21 [2i__|ae__
[22 [oe [26
Aaaa
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

_ Table 3.67 7s.3seaplane

Chena Mumbai
Gender ‘Male [Female [Mate |Femaie |Mate Female |Mate |Female
Mma pa ir. 4 fe oh fp
ese in tae Se ie (iT a
Mao pal 307 | fe 1 se de
Aner10pm 36 [2737 dade —idag
aE a 6
ianiagh 3 (2 [61313 [3 2 [16
seo Fa a a 6 FS Ec
 108 N. Sinha and A. Durani

Table 3.68 Do you feel safe using public transport during the day?
Transport. ~ [Delhi [Mumbai _| Bengaluru
[Chennai
Local bus 42 ES I = tart 3
Metro/local train mal amea [90 jap 170 > ae
Auto ylae | 84 | 1: |9]
Shared auto 69 vaso Snaasnesieall
Radio taxi (e.g. Tab cab, Uber, etc.) _|39
Other taxi services 61 ‘|
38
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Table 3.69 Adaptive behaviours by city (%)

Behaviour Mumbai [Chennai | Bengaluru—
Avoid walking alone at ie
ee da
Be aware of surroundings 49
Keep personal belongings out of sight
Only travel in crowded train/bus ;
9 46
—(36
38
Avoid walking in certain areas at certain times 37 28
Take self-defence classes aE —-— b« oaraiyn anid 425
Only use licensed cabs
Dress within accepted social boundaries Mag {i te 26
Other
No precautions
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

policymaking in the health and education sectors. The discourse on law and order
has been limited to official records on crime and media reports of incidences.
However, neither of the two provide a complete picture of ground realities. Official
crime records capture only a portion of the crimes faced by the citizens (See
Table 3.6). CVS can complement official crime records, systematically diagnose
problems in law and order, and help develop solutions for better service delivery in
policing.
The availability of data on crime, safety perceptions, experience with the police,
and opinions on the police at the city and police zone level render itself useful to
evaluate and customise strategies for each problem and location. To illustrate, we
present the map of victims’ distribution of theft across police zones in Delhi as per
data from SATARC survey. Data showed that the north, north west, and outer
regions had the maximum number of victims of theft (Table 3.72; Fig. 3.7).
Data from a CVS can provide the state and police leadership with a management
tool for various functions, including targeted resource and budgetary allocations,

‘Data presented at sample level.

 3 Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisation Survey 109

Table 3.70 Adaptive behaviours by age (%)

1gs— |21- |31- |41- [51- |61-

City (20 |30 | 40 |50 (60 |70 | 70+
Try to avoid walking alone Delhi 153 {49 |53 {55 | 46 51 143°
|Mumbai |32 |32 [34 |34 [32 |31 |35
‘Chennai |63 |57 |62 [63 (59 (69 |42
$$$ — 4 — — -——

a se ite ss ea ne eae T 7 7

|Bengaluru;/53 |46 |50 |52 |56 /|60 |79

Only use licensed cabs Delhi 18 16 |17 6. 148.120. 122
_

Mumbai |23 |23 |25 |25 123 |21 |22

Chennai |16 [15 |17 [21 [15 [14 |15
Bengaluru ag Tay +1435
Travel only in a crowded train or bus Delhi 34 | 38 36 «=| 38
Mumbai 42 39 |37
|Chennai_ |42 [44 |47 |48 [46 |54 |32
Keep personal belongings (e.g. phone/
‘Bengalura[37
[36 [37 [42 [36 [46 [35 46 (39 | 43
jewellery) out of sight of others $5. 1.41
‘Chennai (46 [34 (40 [40 [41 [52 [26
45__| 23
Avoid walking through certain areas 36 56 32.129
and at certain times of the day 24 |23
Chennai [40 [35 [36 [41 (37 [44 [22
Take self-defence classes
Bengaluru) 26[25
21
[27_|31_[31_[37 _|20
22... yf 19
| Mumbai_|32 |31 |28 26 _|32
[Chennai [8 |7 [6 |7 |6 [4 |-
28 |29
Be generally aware of the surroundings Delhi [47 |48 |52 |49 |48 | 32. |49
[Mumbai {34 |34 [33 [33 [34 [33 |34
Chennai [45 |44 [44 |46 [38 [48 |32
|Bengaluru|50_|4 [51 |49 |46 7 |5 _|54
Dress within generally accepted social |Delhi |19 |16 |18 |18 |16 |14 | 14
boentecies Mumbai |18 15/16 |15 [15 [13 |12
Chennai |9 [9 |7 [11 |6 [6 |2
Bengaluru) 23 |26 |26 |25 |27 |29 |27
Other Delhi _|5 [5 |6 [6 |5 [3 13
|Mumbai [3/4 [5 [6 [5 [7 |10
|Chennai_|- | |- | :
Bengal [6 |6 [7 |7 [8 |10
urulS
Don’t takeanyprecautions Delhi [8 |9 [9 [8 |i4 [12 [il
Mumbai |15 [17 [18 |17 [19 |18 |20
‘Chennai _|30_|32 [26 |27 |34 |25_| 51
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017
 N. Sinha and A. Durani
110

Table 3.71 Adaptive behaviours by gender (%)

te, ey ee Chennai | Bengaluru Mumbai
|
ete
‘Gender Male |Female |Male |Female |Male|Female |Male |Female
Try to avoid walking alone 63. [sor 153 28° 139
Only use licensed cabs lg a AD
Travel only in a crowded train or 49 36 «6139 40 | 43
bus
Keep personal belongings (e.g. 35 36 39 =| 42
phone/jewellery) out of sight of
others
Avoid walking through certain |36 | 36 33 27 +|28 ae We!
areas and at certain times of the
day
Take self-defence classes
Be generally aware of the nN

surroundings
Dress within generally accepted |14 | 21
social boundaries
Other
Don’t take any precautions
£

—>)
N
ea
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Table 3.72 Distribution of victims of theft across police zones in Delhi (%)

District Victims of theft

Central 7
North i
North East 9
North West 15
Outer 13
West 8
South West 5
East 9
South East 7
New Delhi 7
South 2
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017
Note: The results are presented at the sample level

informed decision making for deployment, personnel training, and public record of
performance measurement. Such data, across crimes, can be a useful tool to deter-
mine strategies around location of police stations, and form a basis for staffing,
designing targeted interventions and operational requirements. Bridging this gap in
public data on law and order is an important step for good governance, improved
quality of life, and inclusive, market-based economic growth.
 3 Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisation Survey 11)

North
15%

Outer North East

13% 9%

North West.

East

South West
sa
5%

South East
7%

4%-8%
, =
I) 8%-12% New Delhi South Central
wa 12%-16% 7% 5% 7%

Note: Results presented for the sample

Note: The results are presented at the sample level.

Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Fig. 3.7 Distribution of victims of theft across police zones in Delhi (%)

Table 3.73 Mean age of the respondents

Age (years) Delhi___|Mumbai____|Chennai_| Bengaluru
Mean 39.2 36.5
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Annexure

Summary Statistics of the Random Sample

In Delhi, the sample included 90% Hindus, followed by 9% Muslims. The sample
in Chennai and Bengaluru had 87% Hindus each. Mumbai’s sample included 78%
Hindus. Of the remaining sample, Muslims constituted 5% in Chennai, 10% in
Bengaluru, and 18% in Mumbai. The sample in Chennai had 6% Christians, maxi-
mum amongst the four cities and also included 3% respondents who did not disclose
their religion (Table 3.74).
112 N. Sinha and A. Durani

Table 3.74 Religion distribution by city (%)

Religion = “TDelhi |Mumbai —_—‘[ Chennai_ Bengaluru
Hindu
“Muslim
Christian
Sikh
Atheist
Other
Do not wish to disclose
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Table 3.75 Caste distribution by city (%)

Caste Bengaluru
General oS
Eraad Fra a
SC/ST 15 17 16
OBC
Do not wish to disclose Pe
a Ra
eo aes Ce ee
CRM 12
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Table 3.76 Education distribution by city (%)

Education Bengaluru
Illiterate oh. ae
Literate but no formal schooling/schooling up to 4 years 5
Schooling from 5 to 9 years 23 18
SSC/HSC 51 47
Attended college (including diploma course), but not 9
graduate
Graduate/post graduate: General 14 16
Graduate/post graduate: Professional 3 2
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Across the four cities, between 56% and 61% of the respondents were in the
general caste category. Around 15-17% were scheduled caste or scheduled tribes
(SC/ST) in Mumbai, Chennai, and Bengaluru. The SC/ST constituted 23% of the
respondents in Delhi. The Other backward categories (OBC) constituted 18%, 20%,
10%, and 15% in Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, and Bengaluru. In Chennai and
Bengaluru, around 17% and 12% of the sample did not disclose their caste category.
The numbers were much smaller in Delhi and Mumbai at 1% and 4% (Table a 3
Almost half of the sample had completed secondary or higher secondary school
certification (SSC/HSC) in Chennai and Bengaluru. In Mumbai and Delhi, those
with SSC/HSC level of education were 38% and 44%. The next large category was
those with 5—9 years of school education. This was around 23% in Delhi, Mumbai,
and Chennai and 18% in Bengaluru. About 13-17% of the sample had Graduates
and Post Graduates (general) degrees across the four cities (Table 3.76).
 3 Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisation Survey 113

Table 3.77 Marital status distribution by city (%)

Marital status Delhi Mumbai Chennai Bengaluru
Married B ieee |
Unmarried x ima ttC«<“ sé‘dSS “— 2) eee 16
Divorced jo. 0 jo 0
Widowed Ea ‘6 mt ‘5
‘Abandoned — “16 6. . a :, es San
{SO (0 fo” 10
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Table 3.78 Occupation distribution by city (%)

Occupation ~ 1 Delhi | Mumbai Chennai Bengaluru
Unskilled ‘T9 16 re 17 |
Shop owner 6 6 9 a 6
Businessman with no employees mE 4 cree
5 10
Businessman with |—9 employees 2
Businessman with 10+ employees l
Clerk/salesman ae
Junior level executive/officer 4 2 2 4
Mid-level executive/officer 2 4
Senior level executive/officer 2
Self employed oe
ee Pee
Student et
ees ae
Not working 34 27
Other See
| SE: 9
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Bulk of the sample included married respondents. About 80% of the sample was
married in Delhi and Bengaluru and around 70% were married respondents in
Mumbai and Chennai. The unmarried constituted 21% and 23% in Delhi and
Mumbai, while 15% and 16% were unmarried in Chennai and Bengaluru
(Table 3.77).
The largest percentage of the sample were not working across the four cities.
Almost 27% of respondents in Bengaluru were not working, while in the remaining
three cities those not working included 34-36% of the respondents. The other
important occupations were clerks/salesperson, self-employed, student, unskilled
and other (Table 3.78).
The sample in Delhi, Bengaluru, and Chennai included 71-76% who had been
residing in the city for more than 10 years. In Mumbai, this number was as high as
89%. The next big category included those who had resided in the city for 5—10 years
(Table 3.79).
Similarly, those staying in their current place of residence for more than 10 years
constituted 45%, 57%, 62%, and 79% in Bengaluru, Chennai, Delhi, and Mumbai.
Those living in the same residence for 510 years were 23% of the sample in Delhi,
114 N. Sinha and A. Durani

Table 3.7
79) Number off years of stay tin the city (%)
Ye ‘Mumbai — Chennai | Bengaluru
<1 year (0.5) TH Mon A
A2yeas(15) [td
2-5 years (3.5)
5-10 years (7.5)
>10 years (10) 7
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Table 3.80 Number of years of stay in the current residence (%)

Years Delhi Bengaluru

<1 year (0.5) Se ee 0

yeas) 4i (see
2-5 years (3.5) Ai ae ha FS 19
5-10 years (7.5) 12 20 33
>10 years(10) 57 45 |
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

Table 3.81 Familiarity with the local language by city (%)

Familiarity evel [Delhi [Mumbai [Chennai | Bengaluru

Read 97 2
Writ Cs ce 78
Speak a ee Ce |
None oftheabove [1_—+iii?——SS—~dO iS
Source: SATARC Survey, IDFC Institute, 2017

12% in Mumbai, 20% in Chennai, and 33% in Bengaluru. This suggests that most
respondents weren’t new to the city and their neighbourhood—an important factor
when analysing victim experience and perceptions of safety (Table 3.80).
Another important factor when studying crime incidence, experiences with
police and perceptions with safety is familiarity with language. Almost the entire
sample could speak in the native languages—Hindi, Tamil, and Kannada in Delhi,
Chennai, and Bengaluru, respectively. In Mumbai, 78% of the respondents could
speak Marathi. The reading and writing abilities were slightly lower at 87% and
86% for Hindi in Delhi, 73% and 69% for Marathi in Mumbai, 82% and 78% for
Kannada in Bengaluru. Chennai again stood out with 97% and 95% respondents
reporting reading and writing ability for Tamil (Table 3.81).
 WAMALA
OL MSLLNI
:AVS Pood SutUIOUI
/ uoousaye
/ “Suruaae
Ap auren
st ~aueM)
~
Jo OU (FOMOLATO
ModyVOT EH 3
*jeuoQew
9M, are
ejuy AjJUGLIN SULYRLAp
& AQAINS
UN Suoure
ay) syuaptser
Jo sty AyI9 yNoge
ayy ayeys
Jo me] pure Japsopure Apyes
jo ay) ‘a[doed
asevajqajOU yey} Ano< siamsue
are Ajayo/duroo ‘TENTSpy
OY, UOS MONPULIOZ
UOYe)
UT WO] NOA P[NOM
9q Poye|[Od
JB IYy A} [arg] puke INOA sUTeU P[NOM
JOU
Jeadde aIoyMAur
Ul ¥x9}U09
JO STYY “APNYS
‘osTyNodOp yOu dary0} Jamsue
Aue ‘uoysonb
ft nodop jou ys*0} “IOADMOF
OM Yoas MOA BONeIAdO0
Ut d ButpAosd a9]duI00 ‘UoQeUOpI
sty], Ueo
T djay
aaosdunt Burrod
ut MOA AYO J9AO ‘9UIQ
auL MaLAIOUT
[IM aye} ynoge OF-Sz “SaynuTUT
aM anyeA MOA VOHRI9dOO
1OJ STUo ‘OSTDIOX
OUD OVL AHL Q@TOHASNOH

| orp pyar
S urvey Questionnaire (English)

Se
Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime

29H04 2407 dowa) (ISTINM\O« ee pS

zamqo tzvaresoproq/auozampepisur|
Se
SE EE
ee
Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisation Survey

(SATARC) Survey (2016)

115
 weg:y dyde.is0mwg
sprejog
JO sy} PlOYyesnoyH OOO ss
e_—————_—_-—
116

“ery Surpnypuy
‘nod Moy Auew ajdoed apisas
wi sty ¢pjoyasnoy
asea[g apnpout “UaIp]IyD
Ng Op jou apnpour s}san3
Jo Led BUT ‘SJURAIOS
“qTY SuLIEIS
WY oy} jsaSuNOA Jequieul
Jo ay} ‘pjoyssnoy
plnooNOX eseatd
[[9} out sey]ae pur Japues
auo Aq é2u0
*]d¥D PeeN JogUINU
Jo smol
se Jed asuodsai
woy ‘ery suumyop
jo drysuoyepey
YM ‘“juapuodsoy
“1apuas
a8e are 0} aq day [eUOQIppyUUM]OD 9[suls)
(apoo
Jo pepetes,, .yuapuodsas
0} aq day °00} [q¥D P[NOYS
aq aIGe0} aBuBAIe-91
ay Jap1O
JO s1oqUIUT
Aq ‘ae3 plnoys
Jou doys
Jt IU} JOPJO
ST “P2LIODUT
drysuoNLjey—Jgv
0} ay} D)
yUapuodsar
si pasn10j SULAJQuept
oy) ‘UOsIad
sty, saoe[dar
9Y} S,UOsiad
auTeUpue [eLIas J9quINU
WO sNOLAeId SUOISIIA
JO al}

“WAMAIANALNI
AONOAHL ADV ANY UAANAD
AO TIV SLNAGNOdSTA
AAV ‘AAUN.LAVO
LOATAS
AHL LNAGNOdSAa
GAYINOAA
SV Yad ‘VLONO
ASVAl SHS/aH
NVO JAID AHL MaIAYALNI
GNV ANNLLNOO
AHL MalIAaa.LNI
HLIM WIH
/ “UGH
ASV WIH
/ UAH AHL dIHSNOLLVTau
AO HOV GIOHASNOH
WaAWUA LLM WIH
/ “UHH

(erreuuoysenb
AiysuOnePey
yim dorq—yuapuodsar
unop [1s]
ay Sa REE
puegsny ____
| /SRA P00 :1dV9)
ndo
ee
ee Se Pre

Ja}yysneqg
2]-Ul-193SIS

M
RE
ee
| rreseee Miimrewmes
Me!

pe
SS
pues Ja}qanep
Pe
REE
Da PO
ee
anne
/

ee cee oe Lt
ree ee
/
Jao

es MEI
ees lee se
sew,

JURAIIS
aeW7

ee a
BMT ie Sey
ae
qyewio,
/
W

epee
qewe,
ae

LOATAS
*WAMAIAMALNI SV UAd
LNAGNOdSAA ‘VLONO

SS
qjewiay

4SV ay yuapuodsay
N. Sinha and A. Durani

re
ipo
PM
TTT
 ;

——
Jo
3

19quMN
WwEIUOD
“zy sprejaq
JO ay) qapuodsay

swopuodsoy
|
“eTY
M JayJOTYD ade JoureY (AMD) (2P09)
|__

eee
GZ a0; sprejaq
JO ey) quapuodsay

|
—
mopeeomam
(oman) eee E
WoRIedAND2
aw)10]0 uo (10K (2p09) a p
:apop uoQeonpy JJe19}T]=z
YNg OU [PULIOJ ZuTTOOYIg=E
wo 03S6 srevk
/Zutjooyss Sutjooysg
0}dn
b sieah
OSH/OSS=" pepueyy=S
s8a][0D SUIPNPUl) jsog/ayenpe
cayenpesy
iy=9 /ayenpeig=Z
sog :ayeNpeIy [PUOISSaJOIg
euojdig ‘(asinog
jnq jou dJeNpe‘d
| [e19uey
:apo9 peT[Pjsun=1 doys=z Jaume UeUlssouIsng=€
YM UeUlssouIsng=b
Y}IM 6—I UeUlssoutsn
YIM +O1g=S
uogedns09 oN saaXojdue dura soaAo| sooAo;due
ueUsaTeg/¥1219=
| Jorune=Z
9[ead] PIN=8[242] LoLUag=6
[PA9| Jfag=or podAojdurg
Ia0gjJO/2aQndexy Ia0gjQ/eaaqgnoexy I204JQ/aaQndex9
Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisatio

:2PCD UOrst]eu npumer

| umpsny=z
| wensLYyo=€
| (S=" =S stew
| JeMO=9
| =< jouogYsimOF asopstp
n Survey

raew sums| powew=1

| powewun-2
| aovoma=€
| pasopmm=b
| powopueay=$ 2100-9 ___
117

MS
 “eSy MOP Suo] savy NOA Peptse.1
UI BY] JUILIND
gA}ID
Ul) /sreaX (syyuoul
118

“Gly MOY Suo] savynod Pepisa.1

ye sy] JUI.LIND gSS2.Ippe
Ul) (syjuoul/sIeaX

“bY Og NOA MOUY TyyeIepy)

10j ‘tequinyy
Ipuly
Jj ‘tYy[aq epeuury
Jo} ‘orojesueg
pur [tue],
10} ¢(reuueyDafdynyy sesuodsoy
pemoye

=P 200N 2x90 ange ats)3p00 sr ton eas

VIeg
gq UEP]
JO JUILID

VSee|q
ja] SN MOUJt NOA AjfeuOsed
JOU) J9y}0UR Joquiaul
Jo ANOA (Pfoyesnoy
aay Uaaq
& UIQOLA
JO AukJO BU} SULMOT[OF
SOUILIO pajsT] MOjaq
Ul ou] sed
T
IeaX 19q0}9Q) Iaquia}deag—Stoz
(QIOZ
UI INOA :A}I9
GaVOMOHS
Td

|
“zg ynessy Zuyjnsai
ui Ammfut
eae PO
DoQepImnyU! [UTIL “Sq

Ul (Q1OZ% Jaquia}deg—STOz 19q0}9Q) AeA T Sed JY} UL MOJ9q Pa}ST] SOUILIO SULMOT]O} BY} JO Auk JO WIQDIA B UVa SeY PlOyesnoy INOA ji MOU SN ja] aSee|d
Ayo nof

ed
GYVOMOHS
98 emPUENeod [99.8809
ut-yeaug asnoH ‘Es 1009 |
a Sus cused are
N. Sinha and A. Durani
 a
ce ———s ~ - -

“gg aaeyyNO UVEqay} WINS

JO Aue JdYyIO OUTLID
UT OY yse] “Tea ZuTpNp
ay)OXasauo pouonuauT
00g? 3
a |_
AT ‘SAA YM (S)PUTLID
avy NOK UaEqay} UIHOLA
JO ALLRIM)
(NI

‘IdVOXSVgg aaQoeds
JO aul S.JAMSUe
UATE
UI Tg 0} ‘Lg WoL 1g 0} ‘Lg JoAaoy
ay} M juapuod
sey sal
pres ‘sax,
ay) aagoedsal
UoQoesWor Led
D
“readde
J] jou Pepoo .S9X,, Pihoys
UI AueJo Tg 0} ‘Lg aaout APOaITp
0} WONdIg
“A
Ved°OD STreyIq
JO our)
*ldVO¥sy UONIIS
1) JI P9pod
.T,,Ul Ta

:1D Yay, sapnjoUuz

yuo) ‘Yfay3Jou sso]fo suiayanp0) 1ay}0 (suospa.
TID MOF Aueuwl sour aaRYyNOA UVaqoy] UINIIA
JO YOU)
UT BY) ISP]
TF é1BOA
Jaquinyy
Jo soury

NOLLON
OL ULSNI
AHL *WHMAL
NI AMALNI
ASVD
AO AMOW NVHLANO “‘LNAGIO
ASVNIAHL LNAGNO
OL dSAYWAMSNV
HHL
DNIMOTION SNOLLS
WOAANO
AHL LSOW INdaOda “LNACIO
Al NI
OMLAO TAOW SLNACIONI
NAddVH “WAHLA
ASVDOL
AHL
LNAGNOd
OL SaAYWAMSNV
AHL SNIMOTIOA SNOLLSA
AOA NO
AHL LNAGION
AHLI LNAGNOdSAASHAGISN
AWMOW
OO ‘SQONTAH
FID eseajd
32] sn ‘MOU YOTYM
JO 9y} SUIMOTIsuis}
OJ 3.19M “Ue[0}ysTOW
LE ATd INIGOO
ATaISSOd
Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime

£19
a

Lai plete

CAVOMOHS
Sg

00°"as Pibe
| aceusao
119 Victimisation Survey
 -IdVO
JI 2P09saxul ‘eE-Tg
08 0} GETDasfa UTD
GED
M YT 319M34} é€SOUILID
120

‘IdVO 2SB2]d MOYSuy} 3st]Jo SeUILId peuoQ

Ul ueUT
118g
“q si91O
pue au0N
Jo ayy ‘aaoqy
3 pmnoys
you Aejdst
ayyp suiLtd Jopun
yorstyyub sit Suteq ‘peyse“3-3Uy ‘TD yap [IM ou aq ue UoNdo
‘939

=S peur uoRepranuy
=9 femjpeuuy
qyeag Sutsstpy=Z
uosiad =O SUON
JO 9} dA0Ge

11D aay
pIp oyy yUSpIOUl£4990 ATONIS UAMSNV
GYVOM
tt)OHS

MOZ suIOY yoy mox [erosreu

soe[d
TUIOD [feut)
/ eee}
/
a0e[dy10m yUeINe}
/ saI A199013a10}s (eyxreur/
iRR ES
uy uado UO/sear
94} e uye ayqnd Uy oy} [e90//o
| uy nou
ue
urey} qeo/ojne

S19 GuTEN
By ApITeIO]3.194M
JY} JUSPINU! *Ppetmss
VD) :[d
0 3,0Yse BY} AWL[e90]
Jt asuodsa
10y TD SLY IOI(Z

auTeN=
Jo AytyeI0] p10da1) (eureu =z },u0g Jaquieulas

LID UsYyM
pIp syy JUSPIOU!g4n390 UOQUaW)
ay} YJUOU
pue au} yaam uaym
1 (pousddey
:;gvD doig UMOpysl]Jo S1,499
0} —syUOW
Adag
91 03
aeadde

doig UMOp ysl]jo 49M JST)

/ jou 3.1ns
(
N. Sinha and A. Durani
BIO yey su PIP 9G}UT JUSPLNgan9d90 ayLIM)
ay} auTy
ut paya[dur(snoy
oo 3
JUL],
jo 9duUa1mM
— VO3900
?1q ps0ddy
SB YST “YIOPP
*9*1
uid/ue :apog)
=1 ‘euL],
= },U0g (mouy

61D Pig NOA BABY BDUB1O

.MJSUIYI) WI} FEY) SBM
¢Uea[oys

*IdWO
AT 6°TD
SI ‘SAX08 0} BETOaS[2 OMT)

SOX=1
1119 pig nok yoeoAue
idde /uosied
éonss!

ZT'1D woYy,
prp nok gyovoadde
},U0q)
Ysvjt asuodsad
A0y SLIT'TD
(Z
davVOMOHS

dW/VIW=1t [=z [e900 103e10d109 suazgig=€ ODN/dnoi8 sioyIO=asea[q) (Ajtwodg

EID pig styy uosisd/ADuVZeE
djoy SSaippe
yy geNSST },U0G)
YseJl asuodsa.
10j SLIT'TD
(@
Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisation Survey

PI'ID
JT NOA BdBJ
B JepTUNIS JUSPIOUI
Ul ay} ‘3.mjyny pmonod Yyovoidde
ayy e20Tod
1
 ‘;dVOsy UONIS
FDJI PAPOd
..T,,Ul Sq 122

:zQ yNEssy 3uyjsas

ut Aimfur
e
| ee Poe
poyoeny
Aq payoeyny
IQIM
B poyoeny
WLM Aue Joyo
| paypepy
ul
sa]yoqg/syoor snoso3ue
pelqo
p Aue JayjoAem
rz aaeynod useq AyjesisAydPayee
Aq FUOSUIOS
UI AueJO asa} SABM
UT OU} 4SU]
TF é1BaX
TaVOMOHS
Tl?)

MSV XINO
AI JYOW NVHL ANO SNOLLdOGAGOO
SV .SAA,
NI ‘TZ ASTA dIISOL 96°)
“Gz°zD YIM
JO aSay}Sem ay} JSOUI Jaded €}Uephul ATONIS YAMSNV

=]gyDAyUOayy suoQdoa1aym
1,, sey uaaq papoo
Ul ‘t'z prnoys ‘readde

MAMALAMALNI
OL “AVS BULL. SULMOTIO} suoQseNnb
are ATUO joeBY} JSOU }UII0I JUpIoUT
Jo [Messe ZuQinsear
ut “Arnfur
AT OMLYO AYOW
SLNAGIONI
NAddVH ‘WAHLADOL
ASV AHL LNAGNOdSAA
OL UWAMSNV
AHL ONIMOTIOA SNOLLSANOYOU AHL LNAGIONI
AHL LNAGNOdSAASUAGISNODTAOW “SNONTAH

“|dVDSUL, 3]9NJO YSOU yU990I auILID pynoys 1eaddea[yM SuLyse

[[e ay} Summoy][oy suosanb
JO UoKNdag
Z)
97°70 SBM By} JUSpIOUI poruedui0ss8
Aq Aue 19yy0 é2UILId
N. Sinha and A. Durani
 3

=S jeurUTL uoneprunjuy
=O aUON
JO ay} aaoge

HTD B194GM
PIP IA PUSPIOU!€1NDI0
GYVOMO
%) HS

SpusLy/Apru
ewoy rey

dWo doig uMOp ysT] sqquoUul jO IO — ST} S O] rd

doug UMOpjst] Jo Y99MJST)

/ ,OU 9.1ns
(
Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisatio
n Survey

g°zD pig NOA sABY £20UBINSUI

123
J] ‘Sax UaYQ08 0} BY’Zasa ‘6'SO
eg"z)pig NO< pseu
UE YL0} WEP ‘Q0UBIN
JI SUIéAue

6°7D pig NOA Mouy

ayy (s)19pu
Aq ayo
sureU
10 Aq YSIS
ye ay} SUIJO 9Y} éJU9PLOU!
PIG jOU Mouy
ay} (S)1apuajjo Pace
Mauy ysevape)
suo (Aapuayjzo
Aq 1YZIs Bow
Mauy yseape)
au0 (1apuajjo
Aq sureu eager
pig Jou 3as sy} (S)1apusyjzo ‘Bie
PS
orzoPld Nok10 auoAue
asja wo nod pjoyssnoy yaevoidde
ayy é201jod

11°zD pig nos yoeoadde

Aue ‘AdUa3e/u
194}0
Oosied
UY] ‘ao1]od
0} SSa.Ippe
OY} é9NSSI

z1'zD wioy,
prp nod gyovoadde
},U0q)
yseji asuodsad
10} 11°)
SI (@
GaVOMOHS
suszyIg=€ SODN/dnoid s12yIO="asea[q) (Ajloadg

‘1dVOASV UONI—aS
EQ1 Papoo
..1,,Ul £4
N. Sinha and A. Durani
 3

paol0guado
e pase) ‘9O10j
10 PIua}BaIU
0} 9SN}
1OOp
JO MOPUIM ‘ao104 ysure8e
nodJo Aue Jayjo VO ‘Td PPV STUY10} [[?
ppoyasnoyJaquiaul suoyse
ut nb uoNoes
EQ
SD SBE QuOAUE UayoO1g
Ul JO po}dur19
0} ayeyeI1gOVI ano asnoy
UT AueJo asau} SABM
UT OY} SB]
T étBO4
GAVOM
£9OHS

XSV X'INO
Al 3NOW NVHLANO SNOLLAOGAAOO
SV .SAA,
NI TED ASTA dDISOL 9'€9
“qz"ED YOIYM
JO asay}Sem 94} SOW Juada €3U@ploul ATONIS YAMSNV
:Jqvo ATuoayy suoydoa1aym
.1,, sey usaq papoo
ut ‘t'€D pynoys ‘readde

uUspDouL
WAMALANA
OL :AVS
LNI
PUL SULMOT[OJ SUONsaNb
are A[UO jnogeayy ysour yuader Uaprout
Jo esnoy “Ul>[ee1g
AT OMLAO AMOW SLNAGIONI
Nadav “WAHLAI
MSV OL
AHL LNAGNOd
OL SAYWAMSNV AHL ONIMOTIOA SNOLLSA
YOd NO
AHL LNAGIONI
AHL
LNAGNOdSaAaSUAGISN
AWOW
OD “SNONTAH

*ldVO2UL 220jO Jsou yueoeI suruio plnoys readdeaprym Suryse

[[e ay} Sumo][oy suoysanb
jo WoRNdag
EQ
9z°ED SEM ayy JUSpIOUI potueduio
Aq Auesse Joy}0 é2UILId

J] ‘sad08 0} ‘pz-ED
as[e €°ED
Pz'ED YSTYM319M34} éS2UILID
Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisatio

VD ‘Id BS¥2]q MOYS94} JST]JO SOUILID POUOTUSUL

Ul 118d
I‘_ Si9IO
pure UON JO 24} “OAOGY
3 pynoys
you Aejdsip
ayy surLID Japun yoTYMsty)ub st Zuteq ‘payse
“S*aUy ‘TD Yop [[IM you
aq ue uondo
"230
n Survey

=r you ymessy=z]=] yuomsserey

| =$ feurumnsg uonepramuy
=9 jemmjeuuy Suisstyp=Z =O JUON
JO dy} 2A0ge
wyeeq uosied
 bq Ul ,.1,, pepoo ptAjuo PD UOKIS ASV *‘IdVO
N. Sinha and A. Durani

(z sig’ 10 esuodsa. JI Se 3,U0q) gonsst ey sseappe djoy uosied /AsuaZe sty} Pid 8°£D
(Ayrwoads aseojd) S1EI}O=F
ZaNsst ay} SsaappeE 0} ‘so1T[0d ueYy J9yQ0 ‘Aduese/uOSied Aue yqovoidde no< pig 9°£D
¢201]0d ayy yoevoidde proyssnoy 1noA wo. ase auoAUe 10 nod pig SED
¢AueJI‘QoUBINSUI WEP 0} YL Ue pesu nod pid qrED
(SEQ asya qh" 0} 08 ueyQ ‘sax JJ) ON=Z ‘SeX=T geoUeMsuI sary NOA pi BED
( ams jou / ST) 422M JO ys] UMOp dog
readde 0} 91,4dag 0} St399 — SyUOU Jo st] UMOPp doig :TdVO
126 pousddey 1 ueaYyM YOU pu y2eM 3yQ MOTUS °1NIT0 JUSPLNUI yu} PIP UIyM “LED
 5
01) aq eoic fo sapuab
fo ay} (juapuodsau
2)bas av ~—~~

319M pareos
JO sosessoulwe PMo] 10 BUTODT[AMUN
| ye NOAUL B pMa]
JO en pasodxa
i — v | A) a

a]qeyioyuiooun [eIDOs/[TeWl-3/SWS
| ‘s}UOUIUIOD SuTUA}RAIy)
souUeU
| /pedos3 SAAjasuIDY}
0}
|bas c

[9}/JouINJUI/erpow
| samyse3
JO suoyor ‘
a”)

auoyda
sjjeo
I'bD sey suOAUR 10/pessere
PILN
0} y ssezey
NOAUI AUPJO JsauQ SABM
UT OY JSP]
T éAB4
~ v a,— =

CYVOMOH
tt) S
i=}
oD
o
_— Y
r
= =v
7
2)
<
t ~a

io
x t

|
—
=

ect
=) = v

|
>
2

S
scatacceay
&

eS.
9
D
x

er
e ee
NY |

8
_ - v

=
a)

%'VD OL dS ASTA TV) NI .SAA, SV GAGOO SNOLLdO ANO NVH.L JYOW Al AINO NSV
YAMSNV ATONIS €}Uaploul yWaad SOU at} Sem Bsay} JO YOIYM “qz"vD
‘readde pynoys ‘t'vQ Ut papoo usaq sey .1,, a1ayM suOQdo ay} A[UO *JgyD
127
 WAMAIA
OL WALNI
“AVS OULL Zumoy[oj suoNsenb
are ATUO noge94} sour yua—ver yuaproutr
Jo ‘Woeursse
AI rey OMLAO FTAOW SLNAGIONI
NAddVH ‘UTHLI MSVDOL
AHL LNAGNO
OL dSaaWAMSNV AHL ONIMOTION SNOLLS YOAAND
AHL LNACTIO
HHL
NI
LNAGNOdSAASUAGISFAOW NOO “SOONTAH

*[dWOPUL BQJO SOUT }UAdaI sUILID P[NOYs aeaddeopyM Sunjse

[[e auQ SuMmoT[oy suoysanb
Jo WoRdag
PO
9z"tD SEM sq JUSpUI porued
Aq uros08
Aue 19y}0 é2UILId

yy sat
08 0} ‘pz"rQ
asye €-bD
yD Pe YIM 319M3} ESOUILID
“ldVO eSB2]dmoysau IST]JO S2UILID PeuUOQU
UI Leg
SU “g sidyAO
pue suON
Jo ay} ‘2A0qy
yy
abs smub si Sureq ‘payse pmoys
you Aejdsip
ayy ourtto Jopun
“S*aUy ‘TD Youn [LM JOU aq uv uoNdo
‘39
=S feurang uonepramnguy
=O sUON
JO 94} aOqe
£°>D a194M
PIP ayy yUapPrIOUTgANd90
OM) JOU SVJL BY} OUTLID
9S P2329)
St C.G,,
GaVIMOH
£7) S
MOA suIOY NOYWM UI-YeI1g
NO, suIOYYM UI-YeI1g
Spusiy/Afr
ewoyure.; ie rage
a
yersr9uWI
aoe]0D /[jeur) exyeoyy
/
yUeIMEsS
/ 3141990313
3103s (ja4.1eu1/ Seales
Uy Usdo UO/seare
3y) /}30.138
Ure.) uOne}S aan
uyv anand
sng ea
pakaemaare
=i a
|wrwe fe
p6 os
"7D auUTEN
JO BUR APITTBIO]B194M
3Yyy JUSPIDUT *PILINI90
},UOG)
SE BY} AYLPEdO]QULEU
Jt asuodsa.
10} PE SEET AO *Z OC] JOU JESBOU} IUD
N. Sinha and A. Durani
 3
ae en
pip eu) ees
é4n200 ==)
ay} yam pu 94) YUOUT uayM
1 (pousddey
‘ldVD doag UMOP 3st]oO
doug
umop lj

a“
pig NOA MouyY
oy) ——
Aq auTeU
10 Aq WYSIS
ye ay) OUTJO GY) éJUEPIOUT
CaVOMO
4-0)HS

suezQip=€ ODN/dnois sIspIO=Faseajq) (Apioodg

Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisation
129 Survey
 RS. *S5 peurunry uonepramuy
ISD sey suodue pousjzeo.m
nodut py AueJo oy Sumoyjoy
shem103 Jou SuyTYTY
sey)
130

Spuewop
UT ay} se]
1 é4¥04 CUVIMO
FSO HS

(gq) uLTeH]
0} MoX Ayrurey Joquiour
(9) a3eureg
0} 10/pue amztas
Jo Ayredoid

z°SD MOY Aueul soumQsey sy] DUI USP PIi.m99

UI OUQ0 SE]
T ¢.1e24 YSV)10} Yee Undo euonuew
@davOMOHS
=

jnoqy300
& ({WuoUI
OT-—S Sou
Ul js] 3u0 IeaM
b—z sour
Ul jse] 3U0 IevaA

MSV A'INO
AI FYOW NVHL ANO SNOLLdOGAGOO
SV .SAA,,
NI ‘SO ASTA dSOL q@"S0
“ez’SD YITYM
JO BS9y]
SBM VYy JsOU 4UI901 é49pPoulAIONIS YAMSNY
:;gyo AjuOoyy suondoa1a4ym
,1,, sey uvaq papoo
ut ‘t’Sp plnoys ‘readde
SNOLLOOUI
OL AHLSNI “WAMAIAMA
NI ASVOAO
LNI AUOW NVHLLANO “LNACGIONI
ASV AHL LNAGNOdS
OL aYYAMSNV
AHL SNIMOT10d
SNOLLSANO
YO AHL LSOW LNAQAY “LNACGIONI
A! OMLYO AYOW SLNACIONINAddVH “AAHLAOOL
ASV AHL LNAGNOdSH
OL aYYAMSNV
AHL DNIMOTION SNOLLSANO
YOd AHL LNAGIONI
AHL LNAGNOdSaYSYACISNOOD
FAOW SNONIWH
Gz'°SD SEM ayy JUSPIOUI poruedui0s
Ag Aue .e 19430 ¢9UILID

Jy ‘sak ‘oz"Soasa €°SD

97°SD YITYM913M3Yy C€SSUILID
*IdVD BS¥aIq MOYSFYI IST]JO SOLID P2UOTJUIU
Ul 1B‘q s1zYIO
pue VUON
JO 9y1 ‘2AOgy
YJ pynoys
you Avydsip
oy) suri Jepun
yoryms1yyUb si Bureq ‘payse“3*aUy ‘TD YoY) [TIM JOU Uwq UONdO
‘939
e
oN Sno} e
Ul-yeolg e
=P yUuoUWIsseley
=9 [eanjeuuy)
Yyyeaq Zuisstpy=Z
uosiod =O JUON
JO 94} AOE
N. Sinha and A. Durani
E-S5 VurJO
eN ayQ IY}
ATBIOT 2.194M JUSPTIUT *PALINIIO
;

:ap
I og) auIJO
BN=ByQ ‘AyTBI0] U0q
1. =z
(mouy
SO UayM
PIp sy JUIPTOU!g4NI00 UOQUE{
ay) ) yaempue ay} YQUOUT dayM
yt (peueddey
:Tdvo doug UMOp jst]jo syyuou
— l
$1499
03 adag
91 0) avadde
doug UMOp
yst]Jo YIeMJST)
/ ou a1ns
(

S°Sp Pia NOA MOYayy (S)sapuay

Aq QuIeU
o 10 Aq YSIS
ye Vy} VUIT
JO IU] AUEPPUT
CYVOMOH
SS) S

pig jou MouyY

ayy (S)1epuayjo

Mauy ysvape)
suo (A9puayjo
Aq WYSIs
Mauy jsvape)
au0 (Aapuajjo
Aq eureu
pig Jou 3as ayy (S)19puazjo v
JUON
JO ayy SA0ge S
9°SD pig NOKJO uOAUe
asy2 wo. mo< pjoyasnoy yovoidde
ay} é2o1}0d

Z°SD pig nok yoeoidde

Aue ‘Aouase/uO
19y}0Sied
ueYy ‘ad1[0d
0} SSIIppe
OU} é9NSST

8°SD woyM
PIp nod gyaevoidde
},u0q)
yseji asuodsai
10; Z°S_
st (Z CUYVOMOHS
dW/VIW=1t [=z [e090 10}e.10d.109 suazgig=€ SODN/dnois
6°SD pig stuy uosied/ADuaZe
djay Ssaappe
VU gONSSI },U0)
Ysejl osuodsai
10} L°SS
SL (@
Safety_ Tr ends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisation Sur

SaX=1 ON=z
vey

OT'SD
JT NOA 39eJ
& eps yWeprd9Ul
UI ‘a.myny pmomnod yoeoidde
ayy é201j0d
,
SaX=t ON=2
:1dV¥sSV UNIS
9D JI P9POd
..T,,UI 94
13]
 :99 Feanyeuuy
Yyeeqsuy,7) saopjou apnjout (aprons
132

Jaquiay
jo y.mno< ployasn
sem oy petepimnul Jaquiay
jo yIMO pjoyesn
perp
oy
UI Ue jUeploor

&z'9D MOH AUeUI seusey sy JUSpIOUI PI.LM99

Ul UY}0 }SP]
T é1B94

NSV INO
A AI FUOW NVH.LANO SNOLLAOGAGOO
SY «SAA,
NI T'99 ASTH dIISOL 22°90
“qz"9D YOIYM
JO aSaq}3SEM ay} JSOUI yUadaI €349pHU! ATONIS YAMSNV
*JgyD ATWOau suondoa1aym
,1, sey usaq papoo
wt ‘t-99 prnoys ‘readde
5014 103901 qwoprouy
MAMALAMAL
OL :-AVSNI
GUL. Zumoy[o} suOQsenb
are ATUO yNoGe
BY} SOUL JU9I9I JUSPIOU!
JO [eANyeuUUN
qveep
*IdVoOPUL 220Jo ysOUL yua0eI auL1d plnoys seeddeaftyM SuDjse
[[e ay} SutmoT[o} suoNsenb
JO UOKdag
99

97°99 SEM ayy yuspioul potueduios

Aq Aue or 19430 é2UILId

Jy ‘sed ‘pz'go
ase £°90
PZ'9D YITYM319M9Y} éSPUILID
‘IdVO 2S889[dMOYS9Y 3ST]JO SAUILID POUOMUSUL
Ul HIB“qf S19410
pue UON
Jo ay) ‘aAoqy
y] pymoys
jou Aeydsip
ayy suILio Japun

=£ asnoyYy Ul-yeoig
N. Sinha and A. Durani
£95 auTEN
JO IyQ AUTVIO]I9YM
IY} PUIPLUT *PALINIIO 3
=
:apog)
TF BUTEN
JO =IYQ ‘AVTEIO] ae
b99 UsYyM
PIp sy} JUSPLU!IgaNnd90 UOQUAP,)
oy) yam pue ayy YQUOU uaym
1 (pousddey
ldvo doaq UMOpys]jo syuOUT
— St.499
0} 91,4dag
0) Ieadde
doug UMOp ys]Jo YOamST)
/ poz
/ psf
/ mb/ mS/ you (aims
S'9D WwYM 9uTyPp By JUSPIOUT¢4N9I90 2711)
OY} outyuy peye|duto
(sinoy
o
sUITT,
JO 392.199
— 0p10d9y
SB SI Y ‘IOP
-a1 wid/ure :apog)
=1 ‘au,=< },u0g (Mouy
9°99 pig NOA paeuUE YL 0} WIE] ‘9DUBINSU
JI éAU T
ee
EO PO
2:99 pig NOA MOUY94) (S)19pUazZ
Aq vuIeU
O 10 Aq YSIS
ye ay} VUTJO 9Y} AUEPPUT
GAVOMOH
4°99 S
pig JOU MOUY
ay} (S)19puazjo [ee
Mouy Jsvape)
JuO (A9puazjo
Aq 1WYSIs
Mou Jsevape)
au0 (1apuayjo
Aq oureu ma
pig JOU 9as ayy (s)19puazjo ae a
aaa
8°99 pig NOA10 auOAUE
asja wo. ano pjoyasnoy yoevoidde
at é20r[0d
Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisatio
n Survey

10y,O ueY) ‘vo1;od

0} Sso.ppe
sy} geNSSI
133
 OT'9D
A
134

Gioy
PIp not gysevoidde
},U0q)
ys¥JI asuodsa
103 . 6°99
SI (=
@aVIMOHS

———
suazqig=€ SODN/dnos8

IT-9D Pig sTuR

asea|d)

uosied
djay
/Adua3eSseappE
aU} geNSST },U0d)
Ysejt asuodsad
JJ 6°99
St (&
sIaIIO=b

(Ajroadg

VO 71d YSY UOKI

LD AfUO
JI
aS P2po
..1,,Ul 4dd
:4Q Zuissiy suosieg
ro sey auodue
ul zno< pjoyssnoy
au03 Zuisst 10/pue poreoddesi
Ul OY} ySB]
pT é1BoX

z°LDSy aUQ ZuIsstu UOSied

Ue ype 2101)UBY}
gt s1va4
Jo é(03e
£25 asvatg Ayiseds
ayy 1apuad
JO ay} SuIssTu ‘uos.iod ‘ajeura.j=zJIPO=E
efLD sem ayy yuspioul porueduio
Aq Auesse Joyo ¢2UILId
J] ‘sad ‘qE°L5asa 0°29
ELD YOTYM219May) ESPUILID
-IdVD BS¥I]dMOYSFY} IST]JO SOUILID pouoQUeU
Ul 11eq
‘gq si9yIO
pue VUON
JO ay) ‘2Aoqy
yf pynoys
you Aeydstp
ayy suILio Jopun
yorumstyub st Sureq ‘payse
*S*aUy ‘TD yay [IM Jou aq Ue uoNdo
‘939
=€ asnoy Ul-yeaig
N. Sinha and A. Durani
 3
tO UIyM
pp syQ JUSpPIOUTg4NId90 UOQUAaY))
ay) YWUOU
pue ay} yaem UayM
1 (poueddey
*TaVO doaq UMOpyst]jo syuOU
— S149
0) adag91 03 deadde
doag UMOPyST]Jo YIeM 3ST)
/ JOU (ams
S°ZD yey 9uTHPIP oy} JUSpIOUTé4N990 ayL1M)
ay auut payafduroo
(sinoy
|] suTL
Jo 99UI1.1Npsod9 ZT Y
SB dy)
I90 POP
*a*1 (ud/uwre:apo_d
=1 ) ‘eulL],
=% 1,00Q
(mouy
9°LD GuTBNY
JO Vu APITeIO]B1IYM
IY} JUIPIIUL *PI.LINIIO F sureN=
JO Guy AypeI0] mouyyuog=s
|
2°25 pig NOA10 auoAue
asje wo. nod pjoyssnoy yovoidde
ayy ¢201j0d ON=z
92D pig nod yoroidde
Aue ‘AdUaSe/uOS.10d
A9qj0 uvYyy ‘VdT}0d
0} SS9.Ippe
Jy} €2NSSI
62D prp nod
wioyM gyaevoadde Yseft
},.U0g) ul g’Z9
asuodsa, si (z dW/VIW=1 =% [200] 10ye10d.100
daVOMOHS suazQI9=£ SODN/dnoid ‘siataO=b
Apioads

(z sig’Z9 ut asuodsad Jl yse },U0G) geNSST sy Ssaappe dey uosisd/AduaZe stuQ pig OTD

g201jod ayy yovoidde nod pmom ‘3.1njNy Ul JUSPI9UI JepTUAIs B 3dBy NOA Fy IT ZD

IdVO SNOLLINALSNI
WOU Lavd
d

aq 0} SI (9°q SuIpNyxXa)
q Weg ANV 2 0} Tg Jo Aue UI .1,, papop
SED UO OT ZO UO OTTO UW 1, papod FD UO
‘FtA[UO pays
aq 03 ST9°C CNV 4d 0} Tg Jo Aue Ut ,T,, pepoo
PO UO SED UO OTZD UO OTD UI LZ, papop
a NOLLOUS OL JAOW ASTA “Ag 0} Tg Jo Aue UI .T,, GAGOO LON al (a WORE 0} sAout
Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisation Survey
135
136 N. Sinha and A. Durani

ATA
LL
HONS LVL NHAX
dl
"JOU
LAW (quepuodsal
JO
eoqod

OYM ISOU} [[V “MOLAIOJUL LOY) 1OJ YOU outoo pure aiqeyiteare ose Aoy} USyM JUoUTJULOdde aye} ‘a[qeiLeAR JOU (aI) st (s)uOsIed ayy JT
a]qeTTear

ayy ay
OINVNAG

peyseosdde st
YUM uUosiod
“AOTIOd

drysuoyeyad)

JOAO SI JUapUOdsa UTEU dy} YIM MOLAIOJUT GUO (J Rg JO MOLAIAPUT MOY} oye} ‘o|qe[rear (are) si (s)uossed ayy Jy
oy)

ZV pue ‘4 “| Weg Aq pamoyoy ,jIag,, Aq poyorosdde sem ao1jod arayM SeWLIO ay} [[P 10} yUopuodsel ay} 0} q wed ysy
proyssnoy JI
GTNOHS

YALU
Ad
OL.
LNAM

drysuoyeles)
YUM oY}

si9quIoU
0}
mod MOTTE
ONTASV LOOdVOHM
SIHL

woy pjoyssnoy pure ZV

“AUAHL

oy ‘SOWILIO sorjod pure

ployasnoy sIaquiaul

‘J
‘aur Jo ay} “|

aotjod ay} poyoeoidde oym uossed ay} Jo AppIqe[reae yay ‘SeUILIO SULUTEUAI 94} 10,J
€
Jo} jst] URY} Weg
AAV

peyoeoidde

zy pue ‘y “| Weg Ja}stULUIpe oO} enUQUOD puke yuepuodsal Ue oy} 10 weddr{g

AOITOd
ONIHOVOUddV

eseafd o1QUe
DIOUI 0}

SOUILID aALOedsa OY} 10} UOYDES ay) Jamsue [ILM ‘so1jod payoeosdde
AHL SANO TIIM TILLS AWOO

08
dy} Udy)

aorjod ay} peyseoidde oym (s)uossed oy) Jo Ayiqeireak yoyo ‘q Wed 10g
NOA JO
pue UIOLA oym
ued pue
“Yorq Ye] (juepuodsai
BOC yUspuodsas
Uo ay} apts pue st]Jo

SBM
94}
suI UO pOYyasnoy Ul
SOUWILID
SLNAGIONI

autos sreadde
YM dues
AO

94}
jNOge jl drysuoHeed)
poy10daI9ye10d109UI [[e BY}
“AWTAO

aorjod

10} 0}
way

pey[e}
auto Aue J0j UONdO UP 40U SI _JIaG,, *& OLIBUGIg

payosjas
BUO
SeUILID pay10das

SUILIO
Aq
SYOW NVH.LANO

0}

NOA
JO
YOA ANO

Joy yoRa
GAHOVOUddY

0} UOsied
9UO
seoueproUl Jo F UONdO
puoAag
suoydo

jsST] SUILID
pu
9IQUS ATUO
SUILID
OF AWiqe[rear YoRa
SUILIO aU}
(jUepuodseaz

BY} pmnoys
JO SI JO}
se ayy
SALYJsY]JO

Jey]
AINO

eyy
Al

JST] JAS,
sapod Wed
SuTPeIey GINSUS ayy BP
JOIIOd

MOUS°F
Y9eY4D OLIBUZIg ysy
SI

©
©
ASY 80d

saoge
0}
[GVO

0} 0}
"LOG [GYD [GYD «©
ay],“20g
e«
«©

SHAMSNV
ATEHISSOd IO}
YORA
jo
“9UILID
suoydo
saaj10dai
sreedde
se IO}
OY}
BULUTRUIAI
“SOUILIO
PUL
,S19YIO,,
PID9[9S
1OJ
Jag,
OLIBUZIG
SOWILID
SI
°s
AULOS
 pe —— —

yy ayy (s)uosiad
st (are) ‘ajqe[teae
aye} ALY] MATAIOIUT
JO WYCj 9OUO MALATAZUT
YILM AY} UTEUT }USPUOdsar
St J9A0
3
0 yy ayy (s)uossed
st (are)jou ‘a|qe[rear
aye} juouUTodde
“oy fayore a]qeyTeAae
pure auI0d YOR1OJ ITaY} “MeLAIO}UT
[[¥ ASO} OYM
payoeoudde
‘otjod
[]IM JaMsuP
ay} VO|IAS
10} IBY} JATIEdSAI
SOUILID
VO “1d SUMo][Oj suogsenb
poou
0} oq Payse
10} 9Y]} JSOUT JUIIAI SOUaPIOUl
JO [[e BU} SAUILID YOTYM
are peytodad
0} ay} anyjod
— atoAq ato
S[dVO
UT ISBI BY] T9MITAIIIUI
ST 9[GEUN
07 J9T ByEpUO }.1Rg
CG UDAD J9ye poyeadad
S}ISIA
0} IY} “proyasnoy
3M [JIM PILBISTP
OU} ‘MO@LATOJUL
YL ADAMS
[IMaq payteUl /a}a;duIOdUI asuodsai-uoU
puL VY 19M9TA.19zUT
[IM VARY0} aoeTdaz
stTYyy AVAINsIPLM “doyIOUR
*1q Suni0deay
pur ssuodsa.
jo aa1jod
UOQUATL JURAIPAI
JUILID 319Y4M Jd1[0d
SBM
poyoroidde
Moyprp noi yoeoadde
ay] ge0qod ajdyynyy sesuodsaapemoye
GAVIMO
td HS

(49 4103 Z1—6 suondo moysg ‘99-19 103 Z—T suondo moys) pemoyye sosuodsai ajdymyy ¢op aorjod ou) PIP 7eUM

qza / ®&=d GAVOMOHS

(UIA) Hodey uoVeULIOJUT ys B paraysisay | ez!

PC.

jou

dy}

}0U
seM

Pig
}ey}

ased

s
IMOA
JapunN
gorjod

qe
Vsnedeq
Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisation Survey

UTe}.I9}Ue

uoQeys
yUTe|duI0D
gouR}sIsse [eoIpeul JOy ‘Aue jt ‘suosied papunom ay} Yoo], gi*.

uogorpsunf
0} 08 pynoys NOA UOYeR}s do1]0d 3y} 0} NOA payerlig “ae
137

saLimbul spew pue wo payed nod aay yods ay} peyoeay | gz

N. Sinha and A. Durani

vd GaVOMOHS
(1 st Eq 04 asuodsas j1 AjUO YSy)
pomoyyy esuodsey efdyynyy gyuaprour sy 0} esuodsa. ao1jod ayy YM paysHyes ya} NOA UOSES4 BY] SEM BULMOTIO; BY} JO YOTYM “VG
(suoypbysanul aspo ay} fo au109jNo puD snyDoys 1a009
jou saop jj ‘anyod ay} fo asuodsa. }suyf ay} 0} fijuo suafas sty.) ZadqWod ayy payseoidde nok 1ayye asuodsa. ao1j0d ay} YM pelysyes [2ej NOA pig “fq

uoyorpsunf
s,uoneys
JUTe;|duIOD

UTe}LIO}US
VsNedeq
sorjod

JapuN

MOA
yey}

ased

pig
sem

oY}
jou

JOU
aygnd ‘saoeds[eI0] UOISLAaTa}
‘SIadedsmau
SUIpPHOU! sNoLieasaoe|d poeAejdsiq JO sy}
sydesB0}0yd Je
SuIsstu UOSiIed
138
 3

“Sa Aym 319Mnod you paysNes

YIM ay) aorjod asuodsaa
07 ayy gyueproutejdyjnyy sesuodseypamolfy
sv) AUJL asuodsad
oO} SEE
(%
GaVOMOHS
Sq

fe UOQUE|| yuRAalaaaunts epoo (49-19)

Lee AOU, 319M yueZOLIe
pue persuUeUl-][I
|¢ t ADU, pasnyer
0} JaystSa1
AU YIJ pue Payse
UI 0} PARQ
) Aoyy, pouud
oy} suTe|q
uO sui pue pal)
0} apeENsstp
VU WO] SULIO}sT391
Ue UL]
L AOU], apeul
oul jem JNOYWM
Aue Uoseel
pue Yoo}
& Suo] sury
0} 19jst8a1
Aw UL
ee
| posmmba feusa}xXe
Ut <uaN0} Jayst8a1
2} UA
9L IU YOd URA YOO} IBAOUL Ue IMOY
0} SALLIL
ye ayy Jods uo. a1ayM
| paleo
aliiAsyy,prp jou ystsse
ay} papunom suosied

x Aoyy, poyse aur/sn

0} Aedue yunowre
Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisation Survey
139
N. Sinha and A. Durani

re ree
| se | | ee
Peers ss
GAVIMOHS
9d
¢Suryqovoidde jou 10}; uos¥ai ay] SBM yey ‘soT;0d ay} Yoeosdde jou prp noA Jy “9g
Pe
140 €9SED JY] JO SNJLYS BUY ST JEM “Sa
 14]

LINAGNOdSaY GALOATAS FHL OL STH.L ASV “WAMALANS.LNI

SLNAGNOdSae GA.LOATAS ASV *IdVO
Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisation Survey

juaIoyIpuy = € IVIGJO sfeulo,j = %

¢Suryoeosdde a][quy.10;u109 a.10U1 39q NOA pnom wWoYM ‘suILID/JUTeE[duI0s & SunsJOds1 UsyM “Vy
ON =z% sox =I
ESI UONEIS/LYMOYp a1;0d ysarvau ANOA 3134M MOUY NOA OG “Eq
MoUy },U0q = b aai8esIp JOU B0I8k IOYPION = € ‘veiSesiq = z ‘saisy = 1 :sepoD
ayes [20} NOA sayeul kare Papnyoas & Ul soUasaid adT]Og “9
Ayo OY} Ul JUOUTUOMAU ages e SUQUTUTeEM ye Gof poos eB Sulop are aorjod ayy, “S
Wd} 0} JNO yoeaI NOA uayM AlTHQVedsaI NOA yeaQ [ILM IoJOd BW], “*b
AywunuTU0d ay} jeduN yey Sonssi dy} SpuRysJOpUN APTLIO] MOA Ul Bd1]Og IY, “*E
Aaressaooujt yduo0id Agu JaMaLAIaI] — ayo ay wouoTMdD :queg | 5
Si as a
3
 Wed
:4 uoydadsad
jo Ajayes
— samainsazuy
Aew Jdwoid
4! Asessadau
142

“Ty Joyy yeYM our

UT 24} “Surusaapmnom
NOA ALIOM jNOGE
Ue ype o[eUl JaquIoUl
Jo INO Pfoyssnoy
OYM euoq episynoeu0Y
éperuedwmosseun
soy ead gsoye|
wd —udosoye|mdoroye|
| wdiraoye| ystuprnioye
| scene aesjeq
P
“Ty Jay yey SUI
UI 3y} ‘SuTuaAdPNom
NoA ALIOM NOgeE
Ue }[Mpe S[eUIsy JaquIsUI
Jo ANOA PfOYyesnoy
OYM Aevul
oq episynoeul0Y
¢éperueduos.eun
carywid dgreye|| _udesoye dorsoye|| ye wide yBuprnsoye|
| srspajssewre
err re
“£5 Og NOA A110M ynoge Ajazes
Jo «MOA Vsnoy VpTYM SULAvZ]
HI payoo]
10} Auvul eshep

||
=| +| s| s/sw)re|ine|eeepenel
eee
IXP}

qe,

xey
‘qeo

oyne
“3'9)

oyny
JOYIO

O1pey

(9}9

pareys
19qN
SOOLAIOS
N. Sinha and A. Durani
“Ly Jayy yeYyM OUI
UT OU) “Suruaaa
prnom
Nod A110Mm ynoge Ajayes eT
3
Suyaae.n
auoye
uo syqnd éModsue.y
‘TdVOON01 ®q payse
st papoo },U0q,,,
asn oyqnd .Wods
Ut uen
Pod

p
“Sy JIYY JVYM SUIT)
ur ayy “SuraPNom
NOA A1.10M ynoge AQayes aTTYM QuOTe
ZUTPaAR.y UT INOA [BUOSJad C9PTYPA
on aqqeoyddysaye
Z wid saye
g wid sayye
6 wid sayye
oF wid 1aqye
Tr uid YY SARMTY
[vay ayes
on) [euossad yystaprun
(aJo1yaa
oe | tel ie
*64 OG NOA [Vaj ayes SUDITEauoTe
M ul ano< pooy.moqySie
SuLmMp
ay)u éAep

OL] IIYV yey BUUT 9yQ “SuTUaAIpmnom

NOA A110M moge Ajazes aTTYM SuryTeM punoseauOye
ul 1no< épooysoqgysiou
Zayewd udgwdosaye
aoy| e| udorsoye|
| _—diroye
wampmoyy| SARBM[V
[do} afes

EE | Pos
I Jay yeYM OUI
Ul 34} “Surasaaa
pmnom
NoOA AL10M ynoge Ajozes aTfYM SuImeApYy
Aouow
IM auoye wo. «mod POoysoqys
ELLYiou
soup ud widgroye|| wdeseye wdorsoye| wdisye] néupmeyy| sAem[y
[aay ayes jon afqeoyddy
| aka);
“Z1J SuIps099y
0} ‘NOA MOY SNOLIas
SI ayy WIa,{qoud
JO VUITAD
ST UT ANOA [BIO] €¥9I8
Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victim

snoueg wa[qoid yeyMauIOS

yove Wa[qold
yNq JOU AI9A81q JON yonu
Joe waqoid },U0q MOUY
Pb
“E14 Og NOA YUTYYey} GUILID S]PAI]
Ul ANOA [eso] Bare aaey duos‘dn UMOp
10 Padeys
dUQ BUIVS 12AOOY} SB] MJ ESIBIA
+
isation Survey

€ = podejg
ay} oures F = },U0g MOUY
r

“SIj Og NOA aye} AueJo asayy SUOQNEDa1

0} PIOAR
d SUTUIOIAq
B WIA
JO IUITID ITYM AME Woy gewWoYyy(no[d
ences
SesuodsoyQomoliy
e ea
GYVOM
SiaOHS
143
N. Sinha and A. Durani

6 8

ZL
suoqeoossy ao1[Og WO1 UOPULIO;UY
JUOpIseYy WO1 UOVRULIOJU]
v

sourmmer301g
UOISTAI|9|,
suTarey ~Ppooy.mogySieu MOA UI SUILID
PUT — (yep Ul e10Y O}LIM) yuayeaaid ysour afSurs ay} St ‘uoruIdo mod ur VeyM “91
8 Z
soLiepunog [eos pe}dac0e sSUIPUNOLMS 34} JO
suoygneseid Aue oye} },00q Ajjesoues UTy}LM sseig

€
Aep
SIOY}O JO PYSIs Jo no (Alpomal snq 10 ure ouoye Sunyyem
seorepueye UTe}I90SOUT
JO aU} / auoyd *3°a) s8ur8u0jeq [euosied daay PePMOL & Ul ATUO [AAPL], ptoae 0} AIL,
144 ploay SuDeM YSnoi} ureyIs0
 UQUOD
UoHeNWoy Hed‘V
“Sy asvojq areys as0ul 3
s[rejap
Jo INO PLOYPSNOH SHOWS

ayut) /sreax (sy~yuou

— r [[yoynyWoy Geyfi papoo
T Ut eV
Japuey(epoD)
— [[youny
Woy zVJ pepoo
T Ul eV
ay uOTS (apoD)
— [[Yoyny
WOIy Gey
jl popod
UlT BeV
33seBD (epoD)
— [[Yoyny
Wody Geyft papoo
T Ul BoV
uonBonpA
(epoD)
— [[YonyWo. qeyFI pepooULT BeV
UONed
ut) NIDQ
ayy se] ouo (aead (@poD)
— [[yonyWoy deyfi pepooUIT Bev
ae
a7es9y[T=1 =z dJeIOIr
yng OU] [PULIOJ ZuTOOY
wos
IS=E
S 0} 6 saevah
Sutjooys
0ydn
b g/Butpoo
sreakyos
OSH/OSs=" a8aljop
pepuayy=S SuIpnput) cayenpesy
ysog/ayenpein=9 ysog/ayenpeij=Z
sayenpesly
emojdiq ‘(asmopD
ynq jou ayenpesy [eraue5 [BUOtssajoig
:apop pe[2jsuy=1 doysg=z JaumMQ UeUISsau Isng=¢
YIMON | ueUssou
YIMIsng=>
—T UeUssouIsn
Y}IM +O1g=S
uogedns99 saaAo|dura 6 saaAodura saaAo[dura
=9 PeLIelesUOSI9d =£ /19[9 ueurse[eg JOLUNe=g
[PA9] pIN=6[PA2] JOTUIS=OT
[PAQ]
JIdgJO/eaQndexy J294JO/eaQnI0xy J204jJQ/aAQNIExa
gon pacoytur
|21 |
suopmis=
agtomsoner |
Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime

-apop WOrsIay a
| one
| see
| set
| no
| =Z Og jou YSIM
0}
dSO[OSIp
ee ee1s/os-2 290-8
swa|ge |
pourwer powewu
|n-< sovowa=
|€ powopm
| => powopueay=s 19}0O=9

‘Ly yenuuy Pljoyssnoy

auld]
Victimisation Survey

MOpPg
T usemjog
I puke
€ | usamjog
€ puke
2 | uvemjog
Z pukeOF | BAOQy
OF SIE] 0g jou }UBM0}
Soe] soe] asopsip
145
 seypey/preo
JUIUIULIBAOS
éupne jo asodind J0j aynyysuy
N. Sinha and A. Durani

ACI YIM s[reJop yoRJUOD MOA aseYs 0} FAW 0} Worsstutsed ars nod oq “bTy

épseo
pease |

ponss!
UIP!
12}0A

BABY
YONs

“ETY
ped

NOA

OG
AJ
SB

B
pg eee SoX=I g}Un0908 yuRQ B dARY pjoyssnoy ANOA ul suOAUE S20q “ZIV
aie b
a
epryMoyo pooymMoqysion eS ee ajoydaad 10 sys0] poyeoystydos yyM 1OOp 10 AjUe ye LOOp a]qnog
1T¥
CaVOMOHS
pemojpy sesuodsay aydygynyy (Qno peoy) gsuLmoy]o} ayy yo Aue Aq payd0}0.1d asnoy amoA sy] :AjLINDs PjoyesnoyH “ITY
(esnoy oy} apIsut) J[10} ayALIG Jayem-dey
woQI3NU09 AVIOLIeTA
Ooty
GUVOMOHS
°
uonepouue2DV
146
| jowo
saamteyensuon | uonEpourmossy
| pamon
daadang jo
“gy ad],
 Safety Trends and Reporting of Crime (SATARC): A Crime Victimisation Survey 147

»mmon Cause and the Lokniti - Programme for Comparative Democracy at the Centre for the
Study of Developing Societies (CSDS). (2018). Status of policing in India report 2018. A study
of performance and perceptions. Centre for the Study of Developing Societies.
National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs. (2016). Crime in India 2016. https://
nerb. gov.in/sites/default/files/Crime%20in%20India%20-%202016%20Complete%20
PDF%20291117.pdf

aera PEE . Rates : ; age

” we { ry . moss P a 7 ra inf oe

sae het
eee a
ie Da cree —
 Chapter 4
Status of Policing in India Reports: 2018
and 2019

Radhika Jha and Vipul Mudgal

1 Introduction

The Status of Policing in India Report (SPIR) is a series of baseline documents

prepared to assess the impact of policing on the ground. The reports are designed to
evaluate the performance of the police in major Indian states along with the percep-
tions of relevant stakeholders—citizens as well as police personnel.
SPIR 2018- A Study of Police Performance and Perceptions includes a measurement
of performance on parameters such as disposal of cases, prison composition, police
infrastructure, police diversity, and disposal of cases of crimes against vulnerable com-
munities, using official data. Building upon this foundation of official statistics, the
study further explores common people’s experiences with crime and routine policing
matters, their levels of trust and satisfaction with the police, fear of the police, and both
perceptions and experiences of the use of violence and excessive force by the police.
The Status of Policing in India Report 2019- Police Adequacy and Working
Conditions focuses on the working conditions of police; the availability of resources,
infrastructure, and capacity of the police structures across States through an analysis
of official data and a survey of police personnel. This chapter presents a summary
of the SPIR reports of 2018 and 2019, methodologies used, and major findings.
As distinct from a traditional crime victimization survey, the SPIR series attempt
to get a perspective on policing in the Indian states by using a multipronged
approach — studying the perceptions of the people as well as the police personnel on
the prevalence of crime, their experiences in crime registration, overall perception
of crime disposal, attitudes to maintaining peace and harmony, police adequacy and

R. Jha (24)
Lead Researcher, Status of Policing in India Report (SPIR), New Delhi, India
V. Mudgal
Director and CEO, Common Cause, New Delhi, India

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 149
§. Krishnaswamy et al. (eds.), Crime Victimisation in India, Springer Series on
Asian Criminology and Criminal Justice Research,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-12251-4_4
150 R. Jha and V. Mudgal

working conditions, etc. The survey findings are juxtaposed with an analysis of the
official time-series data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) and the
Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPR&D) on crime rates, disposal
rates by the police and the courts, infrastructure, budget, training, etc.
SPIR 2018 and 2019 go beyond just a statistical analysis of crime victimization
in the states, and delve into more complex areas of the how and why behind crime.
The reports cover areas such as people’s experiences of contacting the police, fear
of the police as reported both by the people and the police themselves, and the dif-
ferences in experiences and perceptions of different sections of the society, along
with the prejudices within the police. The study looks at how these perceptions and
experiences translate into a “disconnect” between the people and the police.
The SPIR series treat the police as not just the most visible face of the State but
also a lynchpin of its apparatus of legitimacy and the authority of law. Hence, the
attempt is to address the macro as well as micro perspectives of policing in India.
The SPIR 2018 is a birds’ eye view of policing in the major Indian states whereas
the SPIR 2019 is a worm’s eye view where the average police station is the unit of
data collection.
The SPIR series of research and survey-based studies are designed to measure
the impact of policing on the ground with an objective of aiding a decisive policy
change. The idea is to provide a snapshot of policing in different states of India in a
comparable matrix and to highlight the most glaring need-gaps. The surveys exam-
ine differences in the perceptions of multiple publics based on their caste, class or
religious backgrounds. The findings give us a clue as to where we stand and the
direction in which we could be headed.
The first two reports, i.e., SPIR 2018 and 2019, are meant to be baseline docu-
ments which will work as building blocks for more rigorous and actionable research
in the future. They will also work as primary reference points for time-series data to
be generated over time.
This chapter examines the relevant findings of the two reports across the follow-
ing thematic areas: crime and safety; crime registration and police investigation;
human rights violation by the police and corruption within the police; prejudice
against vulnerable communities; and political interference in crime investigation.
Under each thematic head, the relevant findings from both the Status of Policing in
India Report 2018 (public survey) as well as from the SPIR 2019 (police personnel
survey) have been analyzed and presented.
While the main content relies heavily upon the original reports, some of the
analysis and cross tabulations of the survey data have been done specifically for this
chapter and are not mentioned in the original reports. Before investigating the main
findings of the report, the survey design, questionnaire design, and the survey exe-
cuting have been detailed in the section below on “research methods”. Toward the
end, the chapter discusses the learnings from these findings, future scope for
research, and the way forward.
 4 Status of Policing in India Reports: 2018 and 2019 15]

2 Sampling and Survey Methodology

Survey Design

Status of Policing in India Report 2018: A Study of Performance and Perceptions is

based on a sample survey of 15,563 respondents across 188 assembly constituencies
in 22 states of India. The surveyed states were Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar,
Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh,
Maharashtra, Nagaland, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh,
West Bengal, Delhi, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, and Telangana. The sur-
veys were conducted by the Lokniti Program for Comparative Democracy, Center
for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), in the months of June and July, 2017.
The sampling for this study was done in three stages. One of the key objectives
of the study was to provide state-wise analyses of performance and perception of
policing. Therefore, the sample size for all 22 states was determined on their size.
In big states such as Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, 880 interviews each were to be
targeted. In midsized states such as Odisha and Karnataka, 720 interviews and in
small states such as Delhi and Nagaland, 480 interviews each were to be targeted.
In the first stage, the sampling of Assembly Constituencies (ACs) was done, and
with a target of about 80 interviews per seat, the number of ACs to be sampled per
state were arrived at. A total of 188 assembly constituencies were randomly selected
using the Probability Proportionate to Size method. In the second stage, four polling
stations (PS) within each sampled AC were selected using the Systematic Random
Sampling Method. In all, 752 polling stations were selected by listing all the PSs
within the sampled ACs in the serial order followed by the Election Commission.
The third and final stage of sampling was selection of the respondents. In every poll-
ing station, 35 respondents were selected from the latest electoral rolls using the
Systematic Random Sampling Method. This procedure ensured that the selected
sample was fully representative of the cross-section of voters in the country. In each
sampled polling station, a list of sampled respondents was prepared by listing their
name, age, gender, and address.
“Status of Policing in India Report 2019: A Study of Police Adequacy and
Working Conditions” is based on a sample survey of 11,834 police personnel and
10,535 interviews of family members of police personnel across 105 locations in 21
states of India. The surveyed states were: Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar,
Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala,
Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Nagaland, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Telangana,
Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, West Bengal, and Delhi. The surveys were conducted
by the Lokniti-Program for Comparative Democracy, CSDS, between February and
April 2019. The states surveyed were common in both studies except Tamil Nadu
which had to be excluded in SPIR 2019 as permission was denied at many places.
Prior to the data collection, letters were sent to the Superintendents of the Police
(SP) of the selected locations, informing them about the research objectives and
requesting permission for data collection. Further, a letter of endorsement of the
152 R. Jha and V. Mudgal

research was provided by the President, Mr N. Ramachandran and the Chairman,

Mr Prakash Singh (both former police officers), of the Indian Police Foundation.
This letter was also sent to the SPs of the selected locations, and a copy was carried
by field investigators at the time of data collection. At most locations, the police
personnel were forthcoming about participating in the survey.
In this study, the locations in the states were chosen using purposive heteroge-
neous sampling method to capture the social diversity, geographical spread, and the
administration of the police. Five locations were chosen from each state in such a
way that two locations would capture the policing of population in rural areas, two
locations would capture the policing of population in the urban areas, and one would
preferably capture the policing of population in capital or metropolitan cities. The
locations were also chosen keeping in mind the geographical spread of the states (to
capture the coastal policing, etc.). The locations with comparatively higher SC and
ST populations were also given higher preference.
The second and final stage of sampling was the selection of the respondents. In
every location, 120 respondents were to be selected using quota sampling method.
Through this procedure, it was ensured that in the selected sample, every fifth
respondent was a woman and that out of every five respondents interviewed, at least
four were of the ranks of constables or head constables. The interviews of the police
were typically carried out at the police housing quarters or the police stations in a
given location.

Questionnaire Design

The questionnaires for all the surveys were designed after a series of discussions
and brainstorming meetings with domain experts. Most questions in the question-
naire were structured, i.e., close-ended. However, a few selected questions were
kept open-ended in order to find out the respondent’s spontaneous feelings about an
issue without giving options. To check the accuracy and credibility of the questions
set in the questionnaire, it was necessary to administer it in the field. A pilot field-
work and pretesting of questionnaires were conducted after which many questions
were reframed and some were added or omitted. This process also allowed us to
shorten the questionnaire and improve the instructions for field investigators.
Translation was done for each state by the regional team which was familiar with
the local languages before administering the questionnaire in the field.
The questionnaires for both the surveys, for SPIR 2018 and 2019, were designed
after brainstorming sessions with field experts. The themes of each of these ques-
tionnaires were focused around the research objectives of the two studies. The broad
themes covered in the SPIR 2018 questionnaire were: people’s experience with the
police, trust in police, people’s perception of discrimination by the police, fear of
police, and the overall perception on different aspects of policing. The themes of the
SPIR 2019 questionnaire, conducted with the police personnel, were: working con-
ditions of the police, availability of resources and infrastructure, investigation of
 4 Status of Policing in India Reports: 2018 and 2019 153

crime by the police, conditions of vulnerable groups such as women, minorities.

SCs, STs, and OBCs within the police, perception of the personnel toward these
vulnerable groups, and police use of force and human rights violations by the police.
While the two surveys were on widely different themes, there were some points of
similarity, such as on questions related to the crime, its investigation, level of sym-
pathy of police use of violence (vis-a-vis police’s willing to use violence), fear of
police (vis-a-vis police perception about human rights violations), etc. Some of the
findings on these themes from the two studies have been presented here. While the
findings may be compared and contrasted, since the questionnaire design and data
collection process for the two studies were quite different, the findings cannot be
analyzed together.

Survey Execution

A two-day training workshop was organized in each state before the survey field-
work began in order to train the field investigators (FIs) and supervisors to carry out
the fieldwork operations. The trainers conducted an intensive and interactive work-
shop wherein investigators attended an orientation program and were trained in
interviewing techniques and communication with the respondents. A comprehen-
sive and detailed interviewing guide, designed on the basis of the questionnaire and
survey methodology, was prepared for the interviewers. For a better understanding
of the questionnaire, mock interviews were also conducted by the interviewers.
Field investigators, who were mainly students of social sciences belonging to col-
leges and universities in different parts of the country, were selected to carry out the
field work. They conducted face to face interviews with the respondents in local
languages using a standardized questionnaire.
All questionnaires were manually screened for consistency and quality check.
The questionnaire had codes (of precoded questions) that were used for data punch-
ing. A team was constituted for checking the codes and making corrections if
required. The analyses presented in the reports have been done using the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). In order to be representative at the state
level, the achieved sample of every state was weighted by locality, religion, caste
group, and gender based on Census 2011 figures for SPIR 2018.

3. Key Findings

In the following section, findings from both SPIR 2018 and SPIR 2019 have been
presented. The findings pertaining to the common people’s opinions and experi-
ences are from SPIR 2018, while those pertaining to the police personnel’s opin-
ions, attitudes, and experiences are from SPIR 2019. The two surveys were carried
out separately and in different years. Findings from the analysis of official data of
the NCRB and BPR&D have also been noted where relevant.
 R. Jha and V. Mudgal
154

1. Crime and Safety

SPIR 2018: Findings from People’s Survey

of the
Perception and experience of crime by the people is a more reliable indicator
status of law and order in a region than the registered crime rates, owing to the vast
n
under-reporting of crime in the country. Therefore, in the survey with the commo
report-
people, questions regarding both—perceptions and experiences of crime and
ing were asked.
Results from SPIR 2018 show that 37 percent of the respondents felt that crimi-
nal activities such as burglary, murder, physical assault, and chain snatching occur
in their locality frequently (very often and sometimes clubbed together), indicating
that more than one out of three respondents felt that such incidents are common in
their locality (Table 4.1). When seen across states, this perception was highest in
states such as Jharkhand (72%), Uttar Pradesh (67%), Delhi (64%), Karnataka
(61%), and Madhya Pradesh (57%), where the cumulative percentage of respon-
dents who said that such incidents take place “often” and “sometimes” was higher
than 50 percent.
In order to understand people’s perception of the incidence of crime across loca-
tions, state-wise responses to the question on frequency of crime in one’s locality
were derived into a unique score for each state. This score indicates the overall
degree of incidence of crime in a single figure. Arranging the states in descending
order of their scores- highest score first, representing least amount of perceived
incidence of crime, we arrived at the following distribution, which displays the rela-
tive position of each state regarding this question. We see that Kerala fares best
among all the states, meaning that the occurrence of murder, physical assault, bur-
glary, and related crimes as perceived by the people is lowest there, while Jharkhand
comes last, signaling that incidence of crime as perceived by the people is great-
est there.
Starting from Madhya Pradesh and up till Jharkhand (states with a negative
score), people are more likely to report a high frequency of crimes, whereas other
states with a score higher than zero are more likely to report that crimes ‘never’ or
‘rarely’ occur in their locality.

Table 4.1 “How often do incidents such as burglary, murder, physical assault, chain snatching
occur in your locality-very often, sometimes, rarely or never?”

Very often 9
Sometimes 28
Rarely 24
Never 33
No response ra 6
Source: SPIR 2018, Common Cause
Note: Figures are in percentages. Figures are rounded off
 4 Status of Policing in India Reports: 2018 and 2019 155

As is evident from Table 4.2, people’s perceptions of crime differs greatly from
the actual number of reported crimes in the same region. For example, the Crime in
India Report 2018 by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) provides actual
incidents as well as rates of reported crimes that were registered by the police. A
bare reading of this data indicates that Kerala has the highest rate of total cognizable
crimes under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Special and Local Laws (SLL).
Yet, in our survey we find that in the above table Kerala scores the highest, meaning
that it has the lowest frequency ofcrime as perceived by the people. This contrast in
the two numbers could be a result of two factors: one, that the reporting of crime in
a region may be indicative of a better police-public relationship where better report-
ing is possible and therefore people in general feel safer. Secondly, the difference
could be attributed to the fact that people’s perceptions are relative and in a locality

Table 4.2 State-wise ranking on people’s perception of incidence of crime

Perceived frequency of crime
Rank | State Very often Score
52.9 | 11.0
Assam ECE
Ca 2
3.2 $5.8 |9.3
West Bengal Bibs Gail wht9do 85.00 spear IEE
Nagaland CE FS a Ee Ee 0
il 4 9 49.2 |8.0
Andhra Pradesh 1 2.3 4.8 36.4 [7.5
Himachal Pradesh 28.5 6.6 47.6 7.4

90 (165 5.4 6.6

=at
Mi
A!
nia)
win!
bP!
Ooo
mie

iS) :
Oo \O So ~— ns love) > \o

_ Ww Punjab a Nn
>
||El8
g|
—> Ww — \o Ww\o fo) Ww w

—na z\o
Sia/alsA 22.7 2.6
, 216
>
i}
Ahe

|51B
HEle
=e
BES5 5|S
*
\ag
&" Nw a = bo 39.3 id
17_ |MadhyaPradesh [9.1 47.7 (119.6 14.7 [=1.7
18 [Karnataka [18.0 (42.9
149207 |-23
Ce a EE Ee a ae
20 Uttar Pradesh a Cs
eR 116.7 ES A
22 _|Sharkhand 413.259.0202 56-54
Source: SPIR 2018, Common Cause
Note: The state rankings for Incidence of crime are based on summated scores that were arrived
after weighing each Index category. The category of Crime Occurs includes incidence of crime as
very often and sometimes and the category of Crime does not Occur includes incidence of crime
as rarely and never. The “very often” category was weighed as —0.2, the “sometimes” category was
weighed as —0.1, the “rarely” category was weighed as 0.1, the “never” category was weighed as
0.2. A higher summated score here indicates positive assessment, i.¢., less incidence of crime.
 156 R. Jha and V. Mudgal

which sees lower incidence of crime, even a slight spike in the incidence could lead
to a general public perception of such incidents occurring “very often”, whereas in
another region where such incidents are much more in number and are common-
place, the perceived level of crime could be low. Statistician Jefferey S. Rosenthal
suggests that public fear of crime does not coincide with actual crime statistics.
Using the term “headline bias”, Rosenthal explains, that when something makes the
news, the public believes it happens often. However, he states that the reason why
‘something makes the headlines is because it doesn’t happen a lot”. '
People’s perception of the prevalence of criminality in the locality differs signifi-
cantly from their contact with the police. While the survey did not have a direct
question on whether the respondent, or someone from their family, had faced any
crime in the recent years, the respondents were asked if they had had any contact e

with the police—i.e., whether they or someone in their family had contacted the
police, or the police had contacted them in the last 4-5 years, and the reasons behind
the same. The findings reveal that 14 percent respondents have had some form of
contact with the police in the last 4-5 years, while the majority, 82 percent, did not
have any such contact.
Of those who had any police contact in the last 4-5 years, while most respon-
dents had contacted the police themselves (69%), in about 16 percent cases, the
police had contacted the respondents. An interesting finding was that when seen
across the economic profile of people who had been contacted by the police, the
poorest were nearly twice as likely to have been contacted by the police as the rich
(Fig. 4.1). However, it is important to note that since only about 14 percent of the
survey sample, or 2202 people, had had any kind of contact with the police in the
last 45 years, the above analysis being done using a much smaller sample.

80 74
70 68 70

60
60

50

40

30
21
20 16 16
2 40 11 10 11
a, || wn-
Upper class
GioH i Ei. i esi
Middle class Lower class Poor
® Complainant contacted the police Police contacted the complainant Both M®Noresponse
Note: Figures are percentages. Figures are rounded off. N=2202.
Source: SPIR 2018, Common Cause

Fig. 4.1 “Did you or someone from your family contact the police or the police contacted
you?”

'Lorrigio, P (January 19, 2008). “You're Safer Than You Think: Statistics Expert”
. Toronto Star.
Retrieved December 14, 2020 from https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2008/01/ 19/youre
safer_than_you_think_statistics_expert.html.
4
 4 Status of Policing in India Reports: 2018 and 2019 157

Question (If the respondent had had contact with the police in the last 4-5 years)
What was the reason for contacting the police or the police contacting you?

Caste or religion related crime | 2

Accompanied a friend or relative ans 3

Petty crimes such as disputes related

to car parking, etc See eas 4

Authorisation/verification of documents (x 5

Domestic violence Pe. Da a ee ee 8

Any other answer not mentioned above ha Se ae aoe 8

To lodge a complaint of loss of essential goods anddocuments i 10

family dispute 1)

To lodge a complaint against property-related crine aS 16

To lodge a complaint against physical assault ee
i i 16

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Note: Figures are in percentages. Rest of the respondents did not respond. Figures are
rounded off.

: Source: SPIR 2018, Common Cause

1 Fig. 4.2 Reason for police contact

57
53
50 49
50

i *
| 6
| , 18 17 146
20 14 “
11 1 me 11

: zg 5' i a | : 3 : : g i

Poor Lower class Middle class Rich

BAccused Victim M@Witnessedacrime Other Don't know/Can't say

Note: Figures are percentages. Figures are rounded off.

Source: SPIR 2018, Common Cause

Fig. 4.3 “Were you an accused, victim or witnessed a crime?”

 158 R. Jha and V. Mudgal

The most common reason for people to contact the police’, as reported by them,
was to lodge a complaint against physical assault and to lodge a complaint against
property-related crimes (16% cases each), followed by family dispute (11%), and to
lodge a complaint of loss of essential goods and services (10%) (Fig. 4.2).
Again, with regards to the contact with the police, the poorest are nearly twice as
likely to be the accused (9%) than the rich (5%) (Fig. 4.3).

Table 4.3 Sense of safety among people during different times of the day
= Those re Those who ih )
who feel |Those who feel not Those who |Overall |Overall
very feel somewhat | very feel not at | those who | those who
unsafe unsafe unsafe allunsafe | feel unsafe | feel safe
Perception of | 13 18 19 47 31 66
safety early
morning

safety during
the day
Perception of | 23 2 44 52
safety at night
Source: SPIR 2018, Common Cause
Note: Figures are percentages. Rest of the respondents did not respond. Figures are rounded off

Question asked: How unsafe do you feel in your village/neighborhood during

different times of the day—very, somewhat, not very or not at all?
In order to assess people’s overall feeling of safety in their locality, respondents
were asked whether or not they feel safe in their village or neighborhood at night,
during the day, and early morning. Nearly an equal proportion of one-third persons
(31%) stated feeling unsafe in the morning and during the day (Table 4.3). In contrast,
a high percentage of respondents (44%) indicated that they do not feel safe at night.
To get a more comprehensive sense of perception of safety at different intervals
of the day, an Index was computed. This revealed that 34 percent expressed feeling
highly safe in their village/ neighborhood and 28 percent stated feeling highly
unsafe (Fig. 4.4). While an equal proportion of men and women feel unsafe at night,
a greater proportion (51%) of respondents in urban areas stated feeling unsafe at
night than their rural counterparts (40%). Similar differences across rural (28%) and
urban areas (34%) could be seen in the perceived level of safety during the day.

People were asked to report on the causes of contact with the police for up to two instances.
Because of very few responses regarding a second instance of contact with the police (n = 747,
excluding those who said “don’t know/can’t say”), only the first responses of people’s contact with
the police have been analyzed here. The trends mentioned here, however, are consistent across both
the responses regarding incidents of contact with the police.
 4 Status of Policing in India Reports: 2018 and 2019
159

3.10%

® Feel highly safe

# Feel somewhat safe

# Feel unsafe

® Feel highly unsafe

= Non-committal

Source: SPIR 2018, Common Cause

.
Fig. 4.4 Index of safety

® Crime has increased in my

locality
® Crime has decreased in
my locality
= Crime level has remained
the same in my locality
= No response

Note: Figures are rounded off.

Source: SPIR 2018, Common Cause

Fig. 4.5 Over one-third believes that crime in their locality has reduced

Question asked: In the last 2-3 years, has crime in your locality increased,
decreased or remained the same?
An important aspect of understanding citizens’ sense of security entails under-
standing their perceptions of crime and security in their locality. Fewer people
expressed that crime had increased (17%) in their locality compared to 37 percent
of those who considered a reduction in the incidence of crime (Fig. 4.5). A little
over one-third (34%) stated that there was no change in the occurrence of crime. As
the locality increases in size and urbanity, the perception of increase in crime also
grows, i.e., respondents in cities were most likely to report an increase in crime in
their locality than those in towns. Twenty-seven percent of those in cities reported
an increase in crime in the last 2—3 years, in towns, the percentage of those respon-
dents who reported so dropped to nearly 12 percent, while 15 percent said so in
 160 R. Jha and V. Mudgal

villages. On the other hand, though, nearly similar proportions of respondents from
these localities said that crime had decreased in the last 2-3 years—38 percent in
villages and towns each and 35 percent in cities.
SPIR 2019: Findings from Police Personnel’s Survey
When a similar question was asked to the police personnel in SPIR 2019, the per-
centage of civil police personnel who responded that crime has increased in their
jurisdiction was the same as the percentage of personnel who think that crime in
their jurisdiction has decreased in the past 2-3 years—36 percent each. Roughly,
one-fifth of the police reported that the crime rates have largely remained the same.
The police personnel were probed further as to the reasons behind the increase or
decrease in crime. Interestingly, while police personnel who think that crime has
increased are most likely to attribute the phenomenon to societal reasons such as
unemployment and lack of education, those who think that crime has decreased are
most likely to offer improved policing (police becoming more active, stricter, etc.)
as a primary reason for crime reduction.

Increasing the numer of police personn¢]) iii __ _______ ¢3

Installing CCTV cameras rs 63

Increase street lighting $3

EE

Improving network of informers [i

_ s 5;
Special squads to curb sexual harassment of women i 40

More preventive arrests of anti-social elenents i 4>

Appointing civilians as S?0s i 30

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

@ Most useful

All figures are in percentages and rounded off. Only responses to “most useful” (rating of 10
on a scale of 10) have been given here. Rest of the respondents rated below 10 or did not
answer.
Source: SPIR 2019, Common Cause

Fig. 4.6 Police’s opinion on measures to curb crime

Question: On a scale of one to ten, please tell me how useful is this for reducing
crime in your area? All those who rated between 01 and 06 have been clubbed as
“less useful”, those who have rated between 07 and 09 have been marked as “more
useful” and those who have rated it 10 have been denoted as “most useful”
Please note that these are seven different independently asked questions.
When we asked police personnel to rate the importance of some of the men-
tioned measures to curb crime, about three out of five civil police personnel (63%)
considered installing CCTVs in all areas and said that increasing manpower was
most important (Fig. 4.6). Police personnel also felt that appointing civilians as
special police officers is least helpful in curbing crime, compared to other measures.
 4 Status of Policing in India Reports: 2018 and 2019 161

Table 4.4 “What is the most important step that the police should take to control crime?”

Spread education/awareness a 13
There should be more patrolling 10
Increase the staff in police 10
Police shouldbestricter
Laws/rules should be stricter
c
8
Police should work honestly and with more [7
dedication ap *.
Source: SPIR 2019, Common Cause
All figures are in percentages and are rounded off

Question asked: In your opinion, what is the most important step that the police
should take to control crime?
On being asked an open-ended question about the most important steps that the
police can take to control crime, “spreading education/awareness” had the highest
proportion of responses among civil police personnel, with about 13 percent police
reporting it as the most important step to control crime (Table 4.4).
2. Crime Registration and Police Investigation
SPIR 2018: Findings from People’s Survey
In the same manner as the increasing crime rates do not necessarily indicate a dete-
rioration in police performance, people’s experience with crime and their percep-
tion of safety does not necessarily indicate their experience with the police and their
satisfaction with the police. Therefore, in order to assess people’s satisfaction with
the police work and their experience with crime registration, separate questions
were asked in the survey.

Investigation is proper and satisfactory rere ae 37

Temporary investigation ES 2
Police harasses people during investigation ee
Does not carry out the needful investigation J s

No response I 10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35s «40

Note: Figures are percentages and are rounded off.

Source: SPIR 2018, Common Cause

Fig. 4.7 People's opinion on police’s investigation

162 R. Jha and V. Mudgal

Question asked: In your opinion, is the police’s investigation of such incidents

(of crime) proper and satisfactory or is it temporary investigation?
On being asked about the overall level of satisfaction with police’s investigation ee
A.

of crimes such as murder, assault, robbery, etc., the people elicited a mixed response.
On one hand, more than one in three citizens felt that their investigation is satisfac-
tory and proper (37%). On the other hand, about 29 percent expressed that the inves-
tigation is not up to the mark and often faulty in nature. Nearly seven percent
reported that the police harass people during investigation and eight percent believed
that the police do not carry out the needful inspection (Fig. 4.7). Satisfaction with
police’s investigation is highest in towns, among upper castes and those who belong
to upper class. Further, experience of harassment by police during investigation is
mostly reported by Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes, Muslims, and those resid-
ing in small cities.
Some questions were asked specifically to the 14 percent of people who had had
contact with the police in the last 4-5 years, to assess the patterns of reporting and
the experiences of the people with the police, as opposed to general perceptions.
The survey revealed that the most common mode of contacting the police remains
visiting the police station in person, with nearly 70 percent respondents having con-
tacted the police by visiting the police station and only about 14 percent reached out
to the police over the phone. Further, the respondents in most cases were accompa-
nied by either a family member (38%), neighbor or friend (17%) or an influential
person (14%) while visiting the police station, with just about one of five persons
visiting the police station alone.
In India, while the registration of cognizable complaints’ is mandated under law,
many complaints are not registered. Preventing, refusing, and delaying the process of
First Information Report (FIR) and complaint registration impede access to justice at
the very beginning. This is also one of the central reasons why crime rates cannot be
used as a marker of police performance, because of the common practice of non-reg-
istration of crime.* In a study done by the Uttar Pradesh Police Commission in
1970-71, it was unanimously admitted by the officers that concealment and minimiza-
tion were commonly done by them. It was noted, contrastingly, that increase in crime
rates in some cases may be a result of improving registration of crimes in that state.
Findings from our survey suggest that among those who had any kind of contact
with the police in the last 4-5 years, 61 percent respondents were able to successfully

*Cognizable offences are those in which a police officer can arrest without warrant (First Schedule,
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973). It includes serious and violent offences such as rape, murder,
kidnapping, etc.
*Rao, U. N., Dr, & Tiwari, Arvind. “A Study on Non-Registration of Crimes: Problems &
Solutions” (Rep.). Bureau of Police Research and Development, Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India. http://www. bprd.nic.in/WriteReadData/userfiles/
file/201612200235022990797Report-Non-Registrationof CrimesProblems&Solutions.pdf
(accessed November 24, 2017),
*Chandra, P. “NCRB Data Names Kerala as India’s ‘Crime Capital’, But Here’s Why It’s a Good
Thing”. India Times, September 27, 2016. https://www.indiatimes.com/news/ india/ncrb-data-
names-kerala-as-india-s-crime-capitalbut-here-s-why-it-s-a-good-thing-262492.html (accessed
November 24, 2017).
 4 Status of Policing in India Reports: 2018 and 2019
163

register their FIR/ complaint® and about 24 percent were unable to do so. Those in
rural areas were relatively more likely to report success in filing complain FIR.

= Crime doesn't require FIR

# Asked for a bribe

# Asked to resolve the

matter/compromise

® Miscellaneous reasons

= No response

Note: Only among those who reported non-registration of FIR; n= 518. Figures are rounded
off.
Source: SPIR 2018, Common Cause

Fig. 4.8 Reasons for non-registration of complaint/FIR

Question asked: Why did the police not file your complaint/ FIR?
One-fifth of the respondents (19%) whose complaint or FIR was not registered
were asked to resolve the matter or arrive at a compromise (Fig. 4.8). This was the
most commonly cited reason for non-registration of complaint/ FIR. Nearly one in
ten (9%) said the non-registration was because they were asked to pay a bribe by the
police. A disproportionately high number of one in two respondents (51%) did not
reveal the reason for non-registration of complaint/ FIR.
There is a difference of ten percentage points in the complaints/FIR that were
read out’ (52%) and those that were written (42%). However, when looked at in
terms of locality, a divergent trend emerges. The FIR/complaint was far more likely
to be read out in rural areas than urban areas (57% as opposed to 40%). On the other
hand, urban areas accounted for a greater percentage of complaints that were for-
mally written and recorded (52%). Sixty percent of those whose complaint/FIR was

®In the survey, the terms complaint and FIR were used interchangeably because many respondents
would not be familiar with the difference. Therefore, it needs to be noted that even if the complaint
of the respondent was noted by the police, it does not indicate registration of FIR necessarily.
7A First Information Report (FIR) is an official registration by the police of a cognizable offence.
a
It is a written document and Section 154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 pro-
vides that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to
an Officer-in-Charge of a Police Station shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction,
~ be read over to the informant. Every such information whether given in writing or reduced to writ-
ing, shall be signed by the person giving it, substance thereof shall beentered in a book in a pre-
scribed manner.
164 R. Jha and V. Mudgal

registered, received a copy of their complaint* whereas 30 percent did not. Men and
those in urban areas were more likely to receive a copy of their complainU/FIR.
Respondents who reported contact with the police in the last 4-5 years were
asked whether they were satisfied with the help provided by the police. Around a
quarter (24%) stated that they were very satisfied, a higher proportion of 41 percent
were somewhat satisfied, nearly one in ten (9%) were somewhat dissatisfied, and 14
percent were fully dissatisfied. The most common reason for dissatisfaction with the
police help was the outright refusal by the police to register a complaint (19%),
demand a bribe (13%) or abusive behavior (12%).

Table 4.5 Reasons for people to be hesitant to approach the police (as reported by the
common people)
Fear of police 15
Police extracts money/ is corrupt 15
Problem could be resolved by community elders 8
It is not good for the family name and prestige to be involved with | 4
the police
Police is not fair to everyone
Lawyers/ friends/ associates suggested not to go to police
Did not feel the need to/no such opportunity arose
Previous experience with police was bad
Fear of dominant caste / religious group
Other reasons VINNY!
SPR
+

Do not know 41
Source: SPIR 2018, Common Cause
Note: Figures are in percentages and are rounded off

Question: Very often, even in times of need, people are hesitant to visit the police
or seek help. What is the single most important reason for this?
People, when asked why they hesitated in approaching the police, were most
likely to say fear of police (15%), followed by demands for bribes (14.5%)
(Table 4.5). Studies globally have pointed toward the fear of police being a major
reason for failure of the people to report crime, particularly amongst vulnerable
communities such as women, people of color, etc.
SPIR 2019: Findings from Police Personnel’s Survey
The unwillingness of the police to register FIRs is glaringly visible even in the
responses of the police personnel in SPIR 2019. Despite the landmark case of Lalita
Kumari versus Government of Uttar Pradesh, 2013 (in which the Indian Supreme
Court held that if a victim’s statement discloses information about a cognizable
offence, the registration of the FIR is mandatory), it is common for police personnel
to refuse filing FIRs even in serious, cognizable cases. This is apparent even from
the findings of our survey with police personnel. When asked to choose between
directly registering FIRs or conducting preliminary investigations for serious

*Section 154(2) of the CrPC provides that a copy of the information as recorded under sub-section
(1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.
 4 Status of Policing in India Reports: 2018 and 2019 165

complaints, about 61 percent of the civil police reported that they agreed more with
the statement that— “No matter how serious a complaint, there must be a prelimi-
nary investigation before registering an FIR”. Only 37 percent of the civil police
personnel reported that they agreed more with this statement— “For all serious
complaints, FIR must be directly registered’.
Further, there is a tendency amongst the police personnel to link crime registration
with the actual prevalence of crime in an area, which can then reflect poorly on their
performance as custodians of law and order. A 2016 BPR&D study notes that man-
agement of crime statistics by police functionaries has linkages with performance
appraisal, and this is one of the most important reasons for non-registration of crimes
in India.’ In order to assess if this is indeed the case, the police personnel in the 2019
survey were asked to choose between the following statements: (1) “An increase in
the number of FIRs indicates an increase in crime in the given jurisdiction’; or (2)
“An increase in the number of FIRs does not indicate an increase in crime, rather, it
indicates that there is only increase in registration of complaints by police’. Fifty-four
percent of the civil police personnel are of the opinion that it indicates a surge in crime
in the given jurisdiction. About 43 percent reported that it indicates an increase in
“registration” of the complaints by the police. More experienced personnel are also
more likely to believe that an increase in FIRs denotes a hike in complaints registra-
tion by police. However, counter-intuitively, police personnel with higher levels of
education are more likely to hold both the problematic opinions, that a preliminary
investigation is necessary before registration of FIR even in serious cases and that an
increase in crime rates indicates an increase in crime in the given jurisdiction.
70
62 61 64
60

50

40 33 35

29
30

20

10

0
Overall Civil police Armed Police

WTRUE MFALSE
Note: All figures are in percentages and are rounded off. Rest of the respondents did not
answer.
Source: SPIR 2019, Common Cause

Fig. 4.9 “The number of crimes reported are lesser than the number of crimes committed in the
$0 oj et}~?

° Rao, U.N.B., 2016, “A Study on Non-Registration of Crimes: Problems and Solutions.” Mumbai:
Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Available at http://www.bprd.nic.in/WriteReadData/userfiles/
Solutio
file/2016 12200235022990797Report-Non-RegistrationofCrimesPr oblem pdf
ns.s&
[Accessed 26 July 2019].
166 R. Jha and V. Mudgal

Question asked: There is a perception among common people that the numbers
of crime reported are lesser as compared to the number of crimes committed in real-
ity. To what extent do you think this is truae—completely true, somewhat true, some-
what false, completely false?
Answer categories of completely true and somewhat true have been clubbed as
“true to some extent”, whereas the answer categories of “completely false and
somewhat false” have been clubbed as “false to some extent”.
Police personnel also agree to a significant extent, somewhat paradoxically, that
the number of crimes reported are lesser than the number of crimes committed in
the society. Sixty-two percent police personnel agreed with the statement that “the
number of crimes reported are lesser than the number of crimes committed in the
society” (Fig. 4.9).
When we asked the police their opinion on how hesitant a common person is to
contact them even when there is a need, about 43 percent of the police personnel
reported that the common person is hesitant (very hesitant and somewhat hesitant
combined). Nearly 52 percent reported that the common person is barely hesitant to
contact the police (Fig. 4.10). The most commonly cited reason for people being
hesitant to approach the police was that people are fearful of the police.
3. Human Rights Violation and Corruption
SPIR 2018: Findings from People’s Survey
The fact that a large number of people believe that a major reason for people to be
hesitant of going to the police is because it is corrupt, as mentioned above, indicates
that police contact and corruption are intrinsically linked in the perception of the
people. Similarly, findings suggest that fear is a major indicator hindering people-
police contact. In this sub-section, therefore, we look at the survey findings pertain-
ing to corruption in and human rights violations by the police.
45

40

. 31
30

yh

20

= 12 12
10

0 - =
Very hesitant Somewhat hesitant Hardly hesitant Not at all hesitant

Note: All figures are in percentages and are rounded off. Rest of the respondents did
not answer.
Source: SPIR 2019, Common Cause

Fig. 4.10 “To what extent is a common person hesitant to contact the police even when there is
a need?”
 4 Status of Policing in India Reports: 2018 and 2019 167

Table 4.6 Paying a bribe to get work done by the police

Those who had to pay a bribe to get |Those who did not have to pay a bribe to
7 ae | work done get work done
Overall 34 Te. er it teas ei
Upper caste 34 to 51
OBC 37 hist 47
Scheduled | 34 a 150
cose
Scheduled 27 22 de a ee = 55. a; nl
tribe | |
ai. x rc 7 eae ho See a
Source: SPIR 2018, Common Cause
Note: Figures are percentages. Rest of the respondents did not respond

Question: “(If during the last 4-5 years whenever you contacted a police officer
or visited the police station) did you have to pay bribe to get your work done?”
Among those people who had had contact with the police in the last 4-5 years,
34 percent had to pay a bribe to get their work done, while one out of two (50%) said
they did not have to pay a bribe to get their work done. While men and women were
nearly equally likely to be affected by corruption in the police, across class catego-
ries, the poor were most likely to be compelled to pay bribe. Similarly, Muslims,
OBCs, socio economically poor respondents were also most likely to have paid
money to the police (Table 4.6).
When we look at the people’s overall perception of corruption within the police,
including the perceptions of those who did not have any contact with the police in
the last 4-5 years, the proportion of people who believe that police is corrupt goes
up significantly. Over 50 percent people agree with the statement (fully agree and
somewhat agree combined) that the “police is corrupt- it does not do its job without
a bribe”, while 31 percent disagree. Within the different categories of police, senior
police officers are thought to be least corrupt, while local and traffic police are con-
sidered more corrupt. It needs to be noted here, however, that while corruption is
seen to be high amongst the police, but that is not a major deterrent for the people
to approach the police. As mentioned in the above section under Table 4.4, while
both corruption and fear of police are the most cited reasons for people to be hesi-
tant of approaching the police, just 15 percent of the people overall say that they are
hesitant to go to the police because it is corrupt or because they extract money.
In terms of the fear of police, an index was created using the citizens’ survey
questions. It was found that 14 percent of the respondents are highly fearful of the
police and 30 percent are somewhat fearful of it. Twenty-four percent were found to
be not much fearful and 27 percent turned out to be not at all fearful. People are
most fearful of being beaten up by the police (about two in five). Across religions,
Sikhs are the most fearful of the police (Fig. 4.11).
A possible explanation of the Hindus being more fearful of the police (14%
highly fearful as against 10% Muslims and 11% Christians) is that the poor and
vulnerable communities, who tend to be more distrustful of the police, are not
evenly distributed. For instance, the category “Hindus” includes a large number of
168 R. Jha and V. Mudgal

37
34

28 30 29
29 .

23 ime

2 a os oe

yi ees wae 4
Hindus Muslims Christians Sikhs

W Highly fearful ™& Somewhat fearful &Notmuchfearful Not at all fearful

Note: Figures are percentages. Rest of the respondents did not respond to the question.
Figures for other religions have not been reported due to their small sample size.
Source: SPIR 2018, Common Cause

Fig. 4.11 Religion-wise distribution of police fear

the SC/ST/OBC respondents and the category “Christians” includes tribal respon-
dents in the insurgency-affected areas of the Central and North-Eastern India. We
also know from the responses of SPIR 2018 that the poor are also more likely to be
contacted by the police than the rich (see Fig. 4.1). The higher levels of fear of the
police among the Sikhs could be attributed to widespread accusations of extrajudi-
cial killings by the police during more than two decades of militancy and separatist
violence in Punjab where the Sikhs are mainly concentrated.

# Fully agree

= Somewhat agree

* Somewhat disagree

® Fully disagree

® No response

Note: Rest of the respondents did not respond to the question.

Source: SPIR 2018, Common Cause

Fig. 4.12 “There is nothing wrong in the police being violent toward criminals”
 4 Status of Policing in India Reports: 2018 and 2019 169

Question asked: There is nothing wrong in the police being violent toward crimi-
nals. Do you agree or disagree? (Probe further whether fully or somewhat)
Despite the high levels of fear, people also, to a significant extent, condone vio-
lence by the police. One in two respondents from the citizens’ survey agreed with
the statement that “there is nothing wrong with the police being violent toward
criminals” (Fig. 4.12).

SPIR 2019: Findings from Police Personnel’s Survey

The police personnel, in the survey, were also asked to rate their own force in terms
of the level of corruption vis-a-vis other institutions. When asked if the police insti-
tution is more, less or as corrupt as other government institutions, most police per-
sonnel (43%) respond that it is less corrupt than other government institutions. Only
about six percent of personnel feel that the police is more corrupt, while nearly 15
percent of personnel are of the opinion that it is as corrupt as other institutions.
On questions to measure the inclination to use violence, it was found that the
police personnel themselves expressed willingness to use violence. Nearly one out
of five police personnel (19%) feels that killing dangerous criminals is better than a
legal trial. Further, three out of four (75%) personnel feel that it is justified for the
police to be violent toward criminals. As many as 83 percent police personnel
believe that there is nothing wrong in the police beating up criminals to extract con-
fessions. Again, disturbingly, police personnel with higher levels of education are
more likely to hold such opinions. An index was created on the inclination of the
police to use or justify violence based on these questions. Overall, 35 percent police
personnel have a high inclination to use or justify violence, while 43 percent police
personnel have a medium inclination to do so. Police personnel in states like
Karnataka, Chhattisgarh, and Nagaland have the highest inclination to use/justify
violence, while those in the states of Odisha, West Bengal, and Punjab have the low-
est inclination to do so. Almost paradoxically, in Punjab, the fear of the police
amongst common people, as reported in the citizens’ survey of 2018, is the highest
across all states. In contrast, for Karnataka, the fear of police amongst the people is
also amongst the highest (after Punjab), as is the inclination amongst the police
personnel to use/justify violence.
4. Crime and Prejudice
SPIR 2018: Findings from People’s Survey
Evidence from secondary data and several studies have shown that the criminal
justice system in India leans against vulnerable communities such as SCs, STs,
OBCs, Muslims, women, and poor people. Analysis of NCRB and BPR&D data in
SPIR 2018 and 2019 shows that Dalits, Tribals, Muslims, and women are under-
represented in the police, while all these groups, barring women, are over-represented
in the prisons. The disposal of cases of crimes against women, children, SCs, and
STs, both by the police and by the courts, is much poorer than the disposal of overall
cognizable crime cases. These trends point toward a systemic bias against the vul-
nerable sections of the society within the criminal justice system in general, includ-
ing the institution of police.
170 R. Jha and V. Mudgal

In the Status of Policing in India Report 2018, state-wise indices were created on
several thematic areas so as to compare states’ performances using official data by
the BPRD as well as the NCRB. This included time-series analysis of the data over
a period of five years across the selected states. The thematic pillars used for this
analysis were:
(a) Crime rates, including rates of total cognizable crimes, violent crimes, crimes
against women, SCs, STs, and children
(b) Disposal of cases by police and courts
(c) Police diversity, including the representation of women, SCs, STs, OBCs, and
Muslims in the police forces
(d) Police infrastructure
(e) Prison data including the percentage of SCs, STs, and Muslims in prisons in
proportion to their population in the state
(f) Disposal of cases of crimes against SCs, STs, women, and children

Analysis of crime data shows that at the all-India level, while the rate of total cog-
nizable crime has more or less remained constant, with a slight decrease in the year
2016, but the rate of crimes against women, children, SCs, and STs have been
increasing. The rate of crimes against children have had an almost three times
increase, from 8.9 to 24, between 2012 and 2016. The introduction of new laws such
as Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012 may have cre-
ated an enabling structure for increase in registration of these crimes.
In terms of diversity, when looking at the five year average of 2012 to 2016, only
two out of the 22 selected states for this study have been able to meet the reserved
quota for SCs (Punjab and Uttarakhand); six states have been able to fulfill the
reserved quota for STs (Bihar, HP, Karnataka, Nagaland, Telangana, Uttarakhand);
and a slightly higher number of nine states have been able to achieve the reservation
benchmark for OBCs (Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Maharashtra,
Odisha, Punjab, Telangana, and Uttarakhand). While this number might seem high
at first glance, but it needs to be understood in the context of the fact that not even
half the number of selected states (22) have been able to meet the reservation crite-
ria for OBCs, and much lesser for STs and SCs. Popular myths pertaining to reser-
vations “eating up” on the general seats are largely unfounded, particularly since
reservations criteria are set mostly in proportion to the percentage of the community
in question in that state. Even as of 2016, UP Police has met less than 40 percent of
the reserved quota for OBCs, and the percentage of reserved seats filled has indeed
fallen drastically in UP from 61 percent in 2013 to 39.6 percent in 2016. Similarly,
in Tamil Nadu, as in many other states, the percentage share of seats reserved for
SCs filled has fallen from 91.1 percent in 2012 to 63 percent in 2016. There is rea-
son to believe, therefore, that things are in fact deteriorating instead of improving
when it comes to representation of SCs, STs, and OBCs in the police force.
Analysis of official data from SPIR 2019 further indicates that STs, OBCs, and
women in police are less likely to be at the officer-level rank (Assistant
 4 Status of Policing in India Reports: 2018 and 2019 17]

Sub-Inspector to Deputy Superintendent of Police)!” than the general police person-

nel. Among the selected states, the proportion of SC, ST, OBC, and women officers
is lower than the overall proportion of officers. As against 13.4 percent general
officers, there are 11.5 percent SC officers, 11.6 percent ST officers, 11.1 percent
OBC officers, and 10.1 percent women officers. As per 2020 official data!'!, women
comprise about 10 percent of the total police force.
On the other hand, several studies in different states have been conducted on the
disproportionate representation of minorities and vulnerable communities in the
prisons. This has been found to be true particularly in the case of Muslims. When
coupled with poor conviction rates and incidents of false implication, as recognized
by courts, this points to a deeper problem of biases within the structure leading to
hyper-incarceration of a particular section of the society. As we see in the survey
findings, there is also a significant public agreement that often Dalits, Adivasis, and
Muslims are falsely implicated. For the analysis of this Index, the percentage of SC,
ST, and Muslim prisoners has been taken in proportion to their respective popula-
tions in the state as a five-year average, and it was found that in case of SCs, only
four states (West Bengal, Uttarakhand, Punjab, and Karnataka) out of the selected
22 have SC prisoners in proportion to or less than their population in the State; in
case of STs, this number is three (Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and
Nagaland), and in case of Muslims, all of the 22 states have a higher proportion of
Muslim prisoners than the Muslim population in the State. The differences are as
glaring as more than seven times the Muslim population in Nagaland in 2014,
almost six times the population of STs in Uttar Pradesh in 2015, and more than
double the percentage of SC population in three states in 2015 (Kerala, Gujarat, and
Assam). At the all-India level as well, this ratio continues to be skewed adversely
against SCs, STs, and Muslims through all five years.
Further, the data on disposal of cases of crimes against SCs, STs, women, and
children show that the charge sheeting rate, disposal of cases by police and courts,
and the conviction rates are consistently lower for crimes against SCs, STs, women,
and children, as compared to the overall crimes. Only a few states stand out in terms
of the disposal rate of crimes against these groups being the same as or better than
the overall disposal rate of IPC and SLL crimes in that state.
Thus, the official data analysis points to an institutional bias within the criminal
justice system against vulnerable groups such as SCs, STs, OBCs, women, and
Muslims. On the one hand, the representation of these groups in the police is poor,
on the other hand they are over-represented in the prisons (except women). Further,
the disposal of cases of crimes against SCs, STs, women, and children is much
poorer than the overall disposal rates in the country.

ia,
errr
i
—

The data for SCs, STs, and OBCs are only available till the rank of DySP. Therefore, the percent-
age of officers amongst women in police and the overall police force has also been taken as the
proportion of ASI to DySP to enable comparison across categories. It must be noted, further, that
the reservation for SCs, STs is applicable even during the first promotion.
'' Data on Police Organizations 2021, Bureau of Police Research and Development, Ministry of
Home Affairs.
172 R. Jha and V. Mudgal

This systemic bias is also reflected in the survey findings of both the general
public as well as the police personnel.

Table 4.7 Opinion on false implication of marginalized communities by the police

| Those who agree that | Those who disagree that
‘there is false implication | there is false implication
View of all respondents on false 38 39
implication of SCs in petty crimes by the
police
Views of only SCs on false implication | 35 43
of SCs by the police
View of all respondents on false 28 42
implication of STs on Maoist charges by
the police
View of only STs on false implication of | 27 42
STs on Maoist charges by the police
View of all respondents on the false 43
implication of Muslims in terrorism-
related cases
View of only Muslims on the false 31
implication of Muslims in terrorism-
related cases
Source: SPIR 2018, Common Cause
Note: Figures are percentages. Rest of respondents did not respond

Question asked: Now I will read out three statements. Please tell me whether you
agree or disagree with each? (Probe further whether “fully” or “somewhat” agrees
or disagrees). (a) Often members of backward castes such as Dalits are falsely
implicated in petty crimes such as theft, robbery, dacoity by the police. (b) Often
Tribals are falsely implicated on Maoist charges by the police. (c) Often Muslims
are falsely implicated in terrorism-related cases by the police.
The survey data support this argument, with a notable section of the general
population believing that police discriminates on the basis of caste (25%), religion
(19%), gender (30%), and class (51%). People also feel that police is likely to
falsely implicate persons from vulnerable communities. Thirty-eight percent people
are of the opinion that SCs are falsely implicated in petty crimes by the police, 28
percent feel that STs are falsely implicated on charges of being Maoists, and 27
percent believe that Muslims are falsely implicated on terrorism-related charges.
While the views of SC and ST respondents do not differ significantly on these ques-
tions from the views of the overall respondents, but a much higher (47%) of only
Muslim respondents believe that the Muslims are falsely implicated in terrorism-
related charges (Table 4.7).
SPIR 2019: Findings from Police Personnel’s Survey
One in four (24%) police personnel believes that migrants are very much naturally
prone to committing crimes, 13 percent each believe that slum dwellers and
 4 Status of Policing in India Reports: 2018 and 2019 173

Table 4.8 “Are the following communities naturally prone to committing crimes?”

a | Very much Somewhat Rarely Not at all

Muslims 2. Une i es « ee as 117
Dalits eT | 128 24
Tribals | 5 26 27
People from poor households 7 ia 29
Street vendors/hawkers | 10 [35 19
Slum dwellers" |13 32 21
Industrialists = Geen a. REO 2 121
Migrants from other states “124 | ek he
Nonliterate people [13 . ii |: Ribak 119"
NavSaperas/NTS//DNTs s |9—“‘i‘CSCSC*dS SS
Transgenders and Hijras En =) ig [27 25
Source: SPIR 2019, Common Cause
Note: All figures are in percentages and rounded off. Rest of the respondents did not answer

industrialists are very much naturally prone to committing crimes. One out of two
(very much and somewhat combined) police personnel believes that Muslims are
naturally prone to committing crimes (Table 4.8).
One of the frequent complaints of women, SCs, and STs is that police refuse to
register cases of crimes against them because they do not believe the victim. Not
only do such prejudices hinder crime investigation, but are likely to negatively
impact the quality of investigation, trial, and the outcome. While such a bias is evi-
dent from the analysis of official data on disposal of cases, it is also reflected in the
survey findings on views of police personnel regarding cases of crimes against
women, SCs, and STs.
On gender-based violence, more than a quarter of the police personnel believe
that cases of domestic violence and dowry are very much false and motivated, while
18 and 16 percent respectively believe that cases of sexual harassment and rape are
very much false and motivated (Table 4.9).
Similarly, 21 percent police personnel hold the opinion that cases under the SC/
ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are very much false and motivated, while 32
percent are of the opinion that they are somewhat false and motivated. While in
cases of gender-based violence, there is not much difference in the responses of
male and female personnel, in the question regarding cases of crimes against SCs
and STs, upper caste police personnel are much more likely to believe that these
cases are false and motivated.
ee

As is evident from recent news reports, the fear of “misuse of law” by women,
SCs, and STs has been raised as an issue by the government as well as the courts,
The Supreme Court judgement in the case of Dr Subhash Kashinath Mahajan ver-
sus State of Maharashtra, 2018 issued guidelines to prevent “misuse” of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989
(SC/ST Act) and made it mandatory to seek prior sanction in writing from the
appointing authority if the accused is a public servant, and from the senior
 174 R. Jha and V. Mudgal

Table 4.9 “To what extent are the following cases false and motivated?”
BS [Very =| ~ |Very |Notat —
/much Somewhat | rare all
Domestic violence — ee ae aa | 20 __|10
Dowry ee ors es or
Sexual harassment ; Wes __118 : 34 |25 [18
Rape 136. @) fet [28 |24
Cases under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) 21 32 26 |15
Act ee
Source: SPIR 2019, Common Cause
Note: Figures are in percentages. Rest of the respondents did not respond

superintendent of police of the district if the accused is not a public servant. Apart
from various judgments, the court relied extensively on the 2002 Law Commission
report and National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data.
Again, On July 27, the Supreme Court laid down directions in Rajesh Sharma
and Ors. versus State of UP “to prevent the misuse of Section 498A [on a husband
or his relative subjecting a woman to cruelty] of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as
acknowledged in certain studies and decisions”.
However, the skewed reading of the crime figures and the conviction rates by the
courts to use as evidence to point toward the misuse of these laws was criticized by
activists, academicians, and legal experts alike. In a later case of Social Action
Forum for Manav Adhikar (SAFMA) versus Union of India, 2018, the Rajesh
Sharma judgement was modified, while the Dr Subhash Kashinath Mahajan case
was effectively undone by the government through its 2019 amendment to the
SC/ST Act.
However, the persistent fear of misuse prevails amongst all pillars of the criminal
justice system, even after the judgements were overturned, creating further hurdles
in the registration, investigation, and trial of the case. As is evident from the analysis
of the official data, the low conviction rates are only a symptom of the overall bias
against these groups within the justice system, and cannot be used to evince any
kind of misuse of the law.
5. Crime Investigation and Political Interference
SPIR 2019: Findings from Police Personnel’s Survey
While findings from the previous sections suggest that there is poor registration of
crimes and less than satisfactory investigation of the crimes by the police, it is also
important to understand the problems faced by the police personnel in the course of
crime investigation. In order to assess this, questions were posed to the police per-
sonnel regarding the obstacles encountered by them during crime investigation.
 4 Status of Policing in India Reports: 2018 and 2019
175

Witness unwillin
to cooperate
g SSRs er ree 11
_——i“‘(“;*;#*«*S Reem
NAN Ra
a EC te ate

Victim unwilling to coopete i —:

ee ee ee
Weak laws that favour the accused i 4.

Prosecution duties i
_ 42

@ Frequently

Note: All figures are in percentages and are rounded off. Rest of the respondents did
not answer.
Source: SPIR 2019, Common Cause

Fig. 4.13 “How often have you encountered the following during investigation of a crime?”

Question asked: Considering the past 2-3 years of your work experience, how
often have you encountered the following during investigation of a crime—many
times, sometimes, rarely or never?
When we asked civil police personnel an open-ended question about the biggest
obstacle they faced during crime investigation, around 28 percent reported pressure
from politicians as the biggest hindrance. This is almost three times higher than “lack
of witnesses”, the second most cited hurdle in police investigation. When asked about
the frequency of political pressure impeding their investigation, 33 percent of the civil
police personnel reported that they have faced political pressure “many times” during
an investigation in the past 2-3 years. As seen in Fig. 4.13 below, nearly two-thirds
(65%) of the police personnel report having faced political pressure in the course of
crime investigation frequently (many times and sometimes clubbed together).

Table 4.10 What is the most common consequence of not complying with such pressures?

Transfer/ posting to a different area 63

Suspension/ Dismissal 12
Threat to personal safety 5
Harsh public criticism 5
Others 4,
No response 13
Source: SPIR 2019, Common Cause
Note: All figures are in percentages. Figures are rounded off and might not add up to 100
7
ae

Question asked: What is the most common consequence of not complying with
such pressures—transfer, suspension, threat to physical safety, harsh public criticism
or others?
176 R. Jha and V. Mudgal

Further, about 38 percent of the police personnel report “always” facing political
pressure in cases involving influential persons, while 34 percent reported “some-
times” facing political pressure in such cases. When the police personnel fail to
comply with such pressure, the most common consequence is posting or transfer to
a different area—with more than three-fifths of the civil police reporting the same.
About 12 percent reported the most common consequence to be suspension or dis-
missal from service, while five percent also reported threat to their personal safety
or physical assault (Table 4.10).

4 Learning and Way Forward

Researchers working on police must bear in mind that the idea of police reforms is
to be seen as a consistent process and not as a one-time event. It is also connected to
wider political and administrative reforms. The task ahead is not only to work
toward an efficient police force but, more importantly, for an accountable police
force. In some ways, the issues of efficiency and accountability are intertwined. For
instance, both efficient and accountable policing require better training and capacity
building, improved forensic or legal infrastructure, continuous monitoring and pro-
cedures for the redress of citizens’ complaints. Many international agencies includ-
ing the United Nations have issued guidelines in this regard after wide consultations
with subject experts, practicing police officers, experts of the criminal justice sys-
tem, academics, and other stakeholders.'*
The SPIR series attempts to study, among other things, the functioning, percep-
tions, police-community relations, and the problem areas of policing. By filling the
gap between official data and lived experiences and perceptions of the stakeholders,
the SPIR series is an endeavor to provide a dashboard of indicators for policymak-
ers, think-tanks, and advocacy groups to push for a more people-centric police
force. So, the task at hand includes shedding light on both police adequacy, mea-
sured in terms of facilities, equipment or diversity, etc. and on the system of checks
and balances through the citizens’ perspective to ensure that the police personnel
are held responsible when they fail to perform their legally mandated duties.
It is in this light that the objective of the SPIR series is to understand the percep-
tion of the people about the police, as well as the perception of the police personnel
themselves about its functioning, problems, and actual ground conditions. The two
studies intended to provide a snapshot on policing in the country through multiple
matrices and through several sociodemographic lenses such as caste, religion, gen-
der, class, and geographic location. The studies focused on several crucial aspects of
policing and the functioning of the criminal justice system in India such as the

Handbook on Police Accountability, Oversight and Integrity (2011) UN Office on Drug and
Crime, Criminal Justice Handbook Series. UN Publications.
 4 Status of Policing in India Reports: 2018 and 2019
177

satisfaction of people with the police, crime investigation, corruption and human
rights violations, discrimination by the police, working conditions of the police, and
pressures on them.

|. What did We Learn?

An overarching learning from the SPIR series is that the police performance is
differential for disparate groups of society. It is often the case that the same force
could work in civilized, responsible and sensitive ways to one section while being
just the opposite for some others, particularly for the poorest and the most vulnera-
ble communities. We have also learnt that the poor are often at the receiving end of
arbitrary treatment and brutality. That is why it is imperative to look at efficiency
and accountability through the perspectives of the weak. The reports also bring out
for the benefit of researchers, policymakers, and advocacy groups the lack of diver-
sity in the system which is essential for improving caste, class or gender sensitivities
through better awareness, training, and capacity-building.
Findings of the two studies suggest that while it is true that an average Indian
reports overall satisfaction with the police, which is consistent with the global trend,
but the same person also complains of corruption and abuse of authority. The find-
ings from the two studies show that the citizens’ overall satisfaction does not dimin-
ish the fear or the police. While people continue to feel unsafe because of crime,
their hesitance to approach the police contributes to the lack of accountability of the
police. Fear of the police is high amongst the people, as is also recognized by the
police personnel themselves, but there is very little willingness to change the factors
that contribute to this fear, with the use of violence by the police being condoned to
a great extent by their own bosses, as well as by civilians.
Reporting and registration of crime are further hindered by the police assuming
a discretionary role in matters of registration, going against the law of the land.
Amongst those people who approached the police but their complaint was not reg-
istered, the biggest reason for the non-registration, as reported by the people, was
that the police asked the complainants to resolve the matter or arrive at a compro-
mise. A significant proportion of the police personnel themselves responded that no
matter how serious a crime, there should be a preliminary investigation by the police
before registering an FIR. Such opinions, which are clearly in violation of legal
statutes and precedents, need to be countered in the form of training and setting
down mandatory guidelines.
The SPIR series shows that the unwillingness to register cases becomes worse
when it comes to crimes against vulnerable communities. People report discrimina-
tion by the police on the basis of caste, class, religion, and gender, and the police
personnel report low levels of trust in female, SC and ST victims. This bias shows
up not just at the time of reporting and registration, but also in the form of false
implications, as perceived by the people themselves. Nearly one out of two Muslim
respondents feels that Muslims are falsely implicated in cases of terrorism, while
nearly one out of two police personnel is of the opinion that Muslims are naturally
178 R. Jha and V. Mudgal

inclined to commit crimes. Such prejudices play out in the form of disproportion-
ately higher rates of incarceration of vulnerable communities, reinforcing a sys-
temic bias.
One of the major factors negatively impacting police investigation is political
ae
a

pressure, particularly in crimes involving influential persons. Not surprisingly,

therefore, one of the foremost demands of the advocates of police reforms has been e
W~~)e

“operational autonomy” in police functioning. The Supreme Court recognized that

the police are under pressure to serve the interests of the political parties in power.
In response, it gave directions for fixed tenures of officers at key operational posts,
in its landmark judgment of 2006 in the Prakash Singh versus Union of India case.
It ruled that the law and order and investigation functions of the police should be
separated. The separation of crime investigation duties of the police was also high-
lighted in the Second Administrative Reforms Commission report. It recommended
insulating “crime investigation, ... both from political interference and from the
day-to-day law and order functions that the police are saddled with.” Unfortunately,
these directives have not been complied with, and in fact have been severely diluted
by the State governments. So much so that punishment postings and political inter-
ference continue to be a common feature of police work.
2. What We Still have to Learn and Next Steps
We still have to learn the range of requirements for building accountability of
institutions like the police which have a direct and unequal power equation with the
general public. The requirements of systemic access and transparency are as impor-
tant as issues of personal integrity and abuse. Future research in the area will have
to evolve qualitative and quantitative methods of review and evaluation of police
actions, operations, statutory duties, and safeguards against the misuse of special
rights and privileges of the police. A similar study of the systemic checks and bal-
ances in the entire criminal justice apparatus, including the judiciary, prisons, and
legal aid will also be very useful.
While the two SPIR reports provide an overall picture of the manner in which
policing works and provide a snapshot of people’s response as well as expectations
from it, a more focused study on specific aspects of policing is required. For
instance, the functioning of the police in states which are “conflict zones” or states
impacted by either some kind of internal disturbance or external aggression, would
presumably be very different from other states. It was with that consideration that
states such as Jammu and Kashmir (now the Union Territories of Jammu and
Kashmir and Ladakh) were kept out of the sample of the above studies. However,
the next study in the series, SPIR 2020-21 (Volume I)- Policing in Conflict- Affected
Regions, captures the working of the police in the conflict states.
These findings from SPIR 2018 and 2019 suggest that the nature of crime, report-
ing, and investigation is not simply law and order failure, but has several layers of
sociocultural moorings which need to be studied in detail. The Status of Policing in
India Reports series is an attempt to do that, and the forthcoming reports will address
other seminal issues in detached, rigorous, and policy-oriented ways.
4 Status of Policing in India Reports: 2018 and 2019 179

Survey Questionnaire (English)

State ID Official No. of A.C. Official No. of P.S. Tr No.

POLICE STUDY - 2017 Ags sates tet

LOKNITI, CSDS-COMMON CAUSE STUDY
F1. State Name:

F2. A.C. Name:

F3. P.S. Name:

F4. Name ofthe Respondent:

F5. Address of the respondent (Give landmark):

F6. Date of interview (dd/mm/yyyy):

F7. Name of the Investigator (Cade Roll No.):

; INVESTIGATOR’S INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF INFORMED CONSENT
|
|
/
name is and I have come on behalf of Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (also give
|your university's reference), a social science research organization and Common Cause, an NGO in Delhi. We are
) conducting a survey on people's perception and experience of dealing with the police. Every person over the age of 18
as an equal chance of being included in this study. You have been selected by chance. There is no risk and also no benefit
in participating in this survey and your participation is voluntary. This survey is an independent study and is not linked to
any political party or government agency. Your identity and the information you provide will be kept strictly confidential,
\Participation in this survey is voluntary. We hope that you will take part in this survey since your participation is
important. It usually takes 30 to 35 minutes to complete this interview. Please spare some time for the interview and help
me in sucessfully completing the survey.

May I begin the interview now? 1. Respondent agrees to be interviewed

2. Respondent does not agree to be interviewed
: EGINS:
Let us begin by talking about this village/town you live in. How long have you lived here? (Number of
years) 97. Entire life 98. Don'tknow
Which state do your ancestors belong to? (Record state name & consult Codebook for coding)
Name of State: 98. Don't know

What is your age? (in completed years) 98. No Response (Code 95 for 95 yrs & above)

Gender: 1. Male 2. Female 3. Other

Up to what level have you studied? (Record exactly and consult code book)
9. No response

How often do incidents such as burglary, murder, physical assault, chain snatching occur in your locality-
very often, sometimes, rarely or never? 1. Very often 2. SomeTimes 3. Rarely
4. Never 8.DK

In your opinion, isthepolice's investigation ofsuch incidents proper and satisfactory oris ittemporary
investigation? _|. Investigationisproper and satisfactory 2. Temporary investigation
3. Police harasses people during investigation
4. Does not carry
out the needful investigation 8.DK
ofpolice presence would you liketosee in your village/area- greater, less ornochange?
What kind
1. Greater 2. Less 3. No change, same as before 8.DK
Centre for theStudyof Developing Societies (CSDS), 29 Rajpur Road, Dethi- 54. Ph: (011) 23942199 1
 R. Jha and V. Mudgal

From time to time, for different purposes, people have some kind of contact with the police. In the last 4-5
years, have you or your family member had any kind of contact with the police?
2. Yes 1.No 8.DK 2, oly Seema
Oba and move to Q9Y,
(fin Q3 therespodent's answer is NO or DK, then please do no ask questions 03a to
you
(Ifin 03, answer isyes) So did you or someone from your family contact the police or the police contacted
2. Police contacted me 3. Both 8. DK 9.NA
1. [contacted the police
you?
(Ifin 03, answer is yes) What was the reason for contacting the police or the police contacting
(Investigator can write down upto two reasons for police contact and alongside each reason, kindly
ask the respondent whether she or he was an accused, victim or witnessed a crime.)
Reason for police contact
ee
ee ee ert ee
1. Accused 2Victim 3. Witnessedacrime 4.Other_____8.DK 9.NA

b. 98. DK/CS 99.NA

1. Accused 2Victin 3. Witnessedacrime 4-Other 8.DK 9.NA

How did you first contact the police- over the phone, visited the police station, via internet/online or police
visited residence or workplace?
1. Over the phone 2. Visited the police station 3. Via internet’ Online
4. Police visited the residence/workplace of the respondent 5. Other 8. DK 9.NA
Who assisted you in contacting the police or visiting the police station?
1. Family member 2. Influential person 3. Neighbour / friend
4. Any other person 5. Nobody, went alone 8DK 9NA
On contacting the police, was your complaint/ FIR registered? 2.Yes 1.No
8. Can't say 9.N.A.

(If no in Q6) So in that case, why did the police not file your complaint/ FIR? (Record answer and consult
codebook) 98.DK 99.NA
(Ifyes in 06) How was the FIR registered-was it read out, written or via mail?
1. Oral/ read out 2. Written 3. Email/viainternet
4. Other. 8.DK 9.N.A.

(Ifyes in Q6) Did you get a copy of the FIR? 2Yes 1.No 8.DK 9.NA.
During the last 4-5 years, whenever you contacted a police officer or visited the police station, did you
have to pay a bribe to get your work done? 2Yes 1.No 8.DK 9.NA
How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the help provided at the police station? (Ifsatisfied
ordissatisfied,
probe further whether fully or somewhat) \. Very satisfied 2. Somewhat satisfied 3. Somewhat dissatisfied
4. Very dissatisfied 8. DK 9.NA
(If somewhat or fully dissatisfied in Q8), What was the main reason for your dissatisfaction? (Record
answer and consult codeboo 98.DK 99.NA
In the future, if you have a problem that requires police help, would you go to the police?
2.Yes 1.No 3. Probably 4. Have no other option 8&.DK
How unsafe do you feel in your village/ neighbourhood- very, somewhat, not very or not at all?
Very unsafe Somewhat Not very unsafe Not atall unsafe DK
a. Early morning | 2 3 a 8

b. During the day 1 2 3 4 8

¢. At night 1 2 3 J 8

Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), 29 Rajpur Road, Dethi- 4. Ph: (011) 23942199 2
 4 Status of Policing in India Reports: 2018 and 2019 18]

QiL. Usually both men and women work in the police force. ln your opinion who is more
Police woman Policeman Both Neither DK
a. Honest l 2 3 + 8
b. Hardworking | 2 3 4 8
And.......,
¢. Whom would you approach for help | 2 3 5 8
Q12. Listed below are a number of institutions. Please tell me how much trusido you have in each of th_m-
a lot, somewhat, not much or not at all? Alot Somewhat Notmuch Notatall DK
a. Local police like police inspector, Sub inspector, SHO 1 2 3 4 8

re
b. Senior police officer like SP, DCP | 2 3 4 8

¢. Traffic police l 2 3 4 8
d. Army/Paramilitary | 2 3 4 8
e. Court I 2 3 4 8
f. Government official l 2 3 4 8
Q13. Often women and young girls are scared to seek help from the police or visit the police station. In your
opinion, what is the main reason for this? (Record answer and consult the codebook for coding).
98. DK
Q4. Ona scale of 10 points where the |st point at left stands for extremely ineffective and the 10th point at
the right stands for extremely effective. In your opinion, where would you place the following in terms of
effectiveness to get work done from the police? SHOW THE SCALE AND EXPLAIN (If no
answer is given, then code 98) Extremely ineffective Effectiveness

a. Political connection O} 02°03: <04> <05) (06207 08 09) 10

b. Money Ol 02 03 O4 05 06 “O7108 (OD

¢. Personal connections inthe police O01 02 03 04 O05 06 O07 O08 09 10

d. Seeking help from local goon Ob, 02° 703" "04° 0S” “06 OF = 108: Oz 10
In the last 2-3 years, has crime in your locality increased or decreased?
1. Increased 2. Decreased 3. Remained the same 8.DK
Now I will read out two statements. Please tell me which statement would you agree the most with?
Statement 1: Police is not able to function properly due to lack of training and other resources.
Statement 2: It is not that the police lacks resources, they are in fact lazy and not motivated to serve people.
1. Agree withstatement I 2. Agree with statement 2 8.DK
Q17. Do you think the police intentionally implicates people under false charges?
2. Yes 1.No 3. Maybe 8, Can't say
Q18. In an area, whenever there is an instance of fight between people from two religious communities, do
you think the police sides with any particular religious community or remains impartial ?
1, Sides with a particular religious community 2. Remains impartial 8.DK
Q18a. (If answer in Q18 is police sides with a particular religious community), In your opinion, which
religious community does the police take sides with? (Record answer and consult codebook)
98. DK 99.NA
Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), 29 Rajpur Road, Dethi- 54.Ph: (011) 23942199 3
182 R. Jha and V. Mudgal

ordissatisfied,
Q 19. How satisfied are you with police performance and their work in your area? (If satisfied
probe further whether fully or somewhat) 1. Fully satisfied 2. Somewhat satisfied
3. Somewhat dissatisfied 4. Fully dissatisfied 8.DK

Do you know of anyone who....? Yes No DK/ CS

Q 20.
2 1 8
a, Died in mysterious circumstances under police custody
2 | 8
b. Been taken into unlawful detention by police/army
¢. A woman who is a victim of sexual harassment or eve
2 1 8
teasing by the police.
2 ] 8
d. A victim of fake encounter

e. A victim of police firing, lathi charge. 2 l 8

f. A victim of police torture. 2 1 8

Very often , even in times of need, people are hesitant to visit the police or seek help. What is the single
most important reason for this? 98. DK
Now] willread out some statements. Please tell me whether you would agree or disagree with the following?
(Probe further whether ‘fully’ or ‘somewhat’ agree or disagree) Agree Disagree NR
Fully Somewhat Somewhat Fully

a. Police is blamed unnecessarily even when it does its job well | 2 3 4 8

b. There is nothing wrong in politicians interfering in the

transfer and posting of police officers. 1 2 3 4 8
c. There is nothing wrong in the police being violent towards
criminals. : 1 2 3 4 8
Q23. Looking at the present number of these communities in the police force, are there adequate numbers of
the following groups in the police ? Adequate Less than adequate More than adequate DK
a. Scheduled Caste such as Dalits I 2 3 8

b. OBC 1 2 3 8

¢. Scheduled Tribes such as Adivasis ] 2 3 8

And what about the following?

d. Muslims 1 2 3 8
e. Women 1 2 3 8
On ascale of 10 points where the |st point at left stands for extremely corrupt and the |0th point at
the right stands for not at all corrupt. In your opinion, where would you place the following institutions in
terms of corruption? SHOW THE SCALE AND EXPLAIN (If no answer is given, then code 98)
Extremely corrupt Not at allcorrupt

a. Local police- police inspector, | | | | |

Sub inspector, SHO, Beat constable O01 02 03 04 OS 06 07 O8 09 10
b. Senior police officer- SP, DCP 01 02 03 04 OS 06 O07 O8 O09 10

c. Traffic police Ol 02 03 04 OS 06 OF O8 O09 10

d. Army/Paramilitary Ol 02 03 04 OS 06 OF O8 OF 10
e. Court Ol 02 03 04 OS 06 OF O8 O98 10
f, Government official 01 02 #03 04 OS 06 O07 O8 O98 10
Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), 29 Rajpur Road, Dethi- $4. Ph: (011) 23942199 a
4 Status of Policing in India Reports: 2018 and 2019 183

25. Now | will read out a few statements. Please tell me whether you agree or disagree with these statements?
(Probe further whether strongly or somewhat agree or disagree) Agree Disagree NR
Fully Somewhat Somewhat Fully
a. Police as a profession is better than other occupations
because of easy access to power and security I 2 3 - 8
b. Compared to other professions, it is difficult to work in the police
force because ofhigh stress levels and long working hours. | 2 3 - 8
¢. Police is corrupt- it does not do its job withouta bribe. l 2 3 4 8
26. Often people are scared of police due to different reasons. What about you- how scared are you ofthe
following- a lot, somewhat, not much or notatall? Very Somewhat Notmuch Notatall DK
a. Fear of being beaten up by the police l 2 3 5 8
b. Fear of being arrested by the police for no reason l 2 3 4 8
c. Fear of the police coming to your house l 2 3 4 8
d. Fear of being falsely implicated inpolice cases. 1 2 3 4 8

e. Fear of sexual harassment or eve teasing by the police. | 2 3 4 8

Have you ever seen a police officer violating the law? 2.Yes 1.No 8.DK

-2272 (If answer is yes in 027) Then did you file a complaint? 2.Yes 1.No 8DK 9.NA

2.Yes 1.No 8.DK

028. Often the police says that it is not allowed to work independently and free from political interference.
Please tell me how much interference do these groups have in the functioning of the police in your
locality- a lot, somewhat, not much or not at all? Alot | Somewhat Not much Notatall DK
a. Political party & politicans I 2 3 a 8

b. Local goons / gundas I 2 3 4 8

¢. Senior police officers l 2 3 4 8

d. Economically powerful groups l 7) 3 4 8

e. Influential and dominant caste of your area l 2 3 4 8
Do you know of someone or have heard of a case of domestic violence in your village/ locality?
2.Yes 1.No 8.DK
(If answer is yes in 029) Do you know if the victim of domestic violence filed a complaint or not?
2.Yes 1.No 8. DK 9.NA
. Incases of domestic violence, is the police helpful to the victim? 2.Yes 1.No 8.DK
It is often argued that police harasses certain groups of people. Have you seen the police harassing the
following communities? Q30a. Is the police right or wrongin taking action against these communities?
Yes No DK |Q30a. Right Wrong DI
a. Rickshaw pullers 2 1 8 2 l 8
b. street vendors 2 I 8 2 1 8
c. Nat dancers/street performers/Madaris/Saperas 2 1 8 2 1 8
(specify Denotified
and Nomadic Tribesin every state)
d. Beggars 2 1 8 2 ] 8
e. Hijras/ Kinnars/ Kothi 2 1 8 2 1 8
Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), 29 Rajpur Road, Dethi- 54.Ph: (011) 23942199 5
184 R. Jha and V. Mudgal

for coding)
Q31. According to you, in the police force of your village/ locality? (Record answer and consult codebook
in number? 98. DK
a. Which religious community's members are more
998. DK
lb. b. Which caste's members are more in number?

It is widely believed that police discriminates between people on the basis of different things. In your
opinion, does the police discriminate? Yes No DK/CS
2 l 8
a. On the basis of caste.

b. On the basis of religion. 2 1 8

And does it also discriminate between

¢c. Rich and poor. 2 I 8

d, Women and men. 2 1 8

e. People from another state. 2 1 8

Many people argue that working in the police is not appropriate for women. Now | am going to read
out some such arguments. Please tell me whether these arguments are justified or not? (Probe. further
whether very or somewhat justified or unjustified). Justified Unjustified DK
Very Somewhat Somewhat Very

a. Being in the police requires physical strength and

aggressive behavior which women lack. | 2 3 - 8
b. A woman should prioritise managing home instead
of joining the police force. ] 2 3 - 8
c. Women police are incapable of handling high intensity
crimes and cases. 1 2 3 4 8
d. Because of inflexible working hours, it is difficult
for women to work in the police force. 1 2 3 4 8
Please tell me whether the following measures in your locality/ area have been introduced or not?
Introduced Not introduced cs

a. All women police station. 1 2 8

b. PCR van patrolling in your locality. 1 2 8

c. Senior citizen helpline. 1 2 8

d, Child helpline number. 1 2 8

e. Helpline for people from North Eastern part of India 1 2 8

(To be asked only in cities)
f. Help desk for SC & ST in police station. 1 2 8
Q35, If your daughter/son was to be the victim of any crime, would you allow her/him to visit the police
station alone to file a complain? (To be asked to everyone including unmarried respondents)
2.Yes 1.No 8.DK
Q35: . (Ifyesin 035) Would you allow your daughter tovisit the police station as much as you wouldallow yourson?
2. Yes 1.No 8.DK 9.NA
36, In your locality, members from which caste/community are more in number? (Record answer and
consult codebook) 998. DK
Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), 29 Rajpur Road, Dethi- $4. Ph: (011) 23942199 6
 4 Status of Policing in India Reports: 2018 and 2019 185
aha
*~ Q37. Inanarea, whenever there isaninstance offight between people from two caste groups, do you think
the police sides with any particular caste group orremains impartial ?
1, Sides with a particular caste group 2. Remains impartial 8. DK
Q37a. (Ifanswer in Q37 is police sides with a particular caste group), \n your opinion, which caste
em fn | group does the police take sides with? (Record answe
and consult
r codebook)
Ee ee ee eee 999.NA
Q38. Now Iwill read out three statements. Please tell me which of these would you agree with? (Probe further
whether ‘fully’or ‘somewhat’ agrees or disagrees). Agree Disagree NR
Fully Somewhat Somewhat Fully
es a. Often members of backward castes such as Dalits
are falsely implicated in petty crimes such as theft,
robbery, dacoity by the police. I 2 3 oe |
b. Often tribals are falsely implica
on Maoist
tedcharges
by the police, l 2 3 &- 2
¢. Often Muslims are falsely implicated in terrorism related
TTT
cee cases by the police. 1 2 3 & 8
1939. In any of the above cases, if the person is absolved of charges by the court, should action be initiated
against policemen who implicated them? 2Yes 1.No 8.DK
140. Inthe last2-3years, haveyoutriedcalling police (100 number) onphoneinanemergency situation?
|
2.Yes 1.No 8.DK
a Q40a. (Only for women) Have you ever called onthe women's helpline number?
2Yes 1.No 8.DK 9.NA
Po Q40b. (Ifyes in Q40) Then on calling police did you receive any help?
; 2. Yes 1.No 3. No one took thecall
4. Number was not inuse rs 8.DK 9.NA
-— 1Q40e. (Ifyesin940)Inyour experience, towhatextent hasaccess to100number improved inthelast2-3
years- a lot, somewhat, not much or not at all? 1. A lot 2. Somewhat 3. Not much
= 7 —4,Notatall —-8.DK -9.NA
we .. \ Incomparison toother jobs, aretheworking hours ofthepolice greater orless?
Ts . 1.Greater 2. Less
3. Same asotherjobs 8DK
Q42. WeknowAccording
E—=]___-yearrs. process
thattheto of justice often getsdelayed andnumerous cases remain pendin g
forseveral
_ a you, which institution is responsible forthisdelay?
Ps | 1.Police 2.Cout = 3.Both 4.Neither
5. oh a
186 R. Jha and V. Mudgal

BACKGROUND DATA

ZAb. :
e . Upto what level have your father and your mother studied?
ZAb.Mother: 9. No response
Z4a.Father:
ascer
What is your main occupation? (Record exactly and consult codebook & if retired, try to
well)
tain his/her previous occupation. If student or housewife, then note down that as
98. No response

Are you the main earner of your household? 2. Yes 1. No

and
(If No in ZSa) What is the occupation of the main earner of your household? (Record exactly
consult codebook) _99. NA

How far is the nearest police station/chowki from your village/locality? (Record answerinkilometer. If
answer is more than 100 kilometer then code 96) 98. Can't say

Are you married? 1. Married 2. Married (Gauna not performed, not started living together)
3. Widowed 4. Divorced 5. Separated 6. Deserted
7, Unmarried/Single 8. Live with partner but not married 9. NR
Z7a. (If married) Do you have a boy or a girl?
1. Boy 2.Girl 3. Both 4, None 8.NR 9.NA

Z8. What is your Caste/Jati-biradari/Tribe name?(Consult code book for code)

And what is your caste group? (Double check and consult code book)
1. Scheduled Caste (SC) 2. ScheduledTribe(ST) 3. Other Backward Classes (OBC) 4. Other

What isyourreligion? 1.Hindu 2.Muslim 3. Christian 4. Sikh 5. Buddhist/Neo Buddhist

6. Jain 7. Parsi 8.Noreligion 9. Others (Specify)

Generally, which language is spoken in your house?(Consult code book forcoding)

98. No response

What kind of mobile phone do you have—a normal phone or a smart phone with a touch screen?
1. Normal phone 2. Smart phone 3. Don’t have a phone 8. No answer

Z\ 1a. (If respondent has a mobile phone) Does your phone have an internet connection?
2 Yes 1.No 8. No Answer 9. Not
Applicable

Z12. DoyouhaveanAadhaar Card? 2Yes 1. No

Z13. Locality: 1. Village 2. Town (50,000 to 1 lakh population)
3. Small City (/-5 lakh) 4. Big City (S-/0 lakh) 5. Metropolitan City (Above /0 lakh)

Z13a. (If Town/Small City/Big City/Metropolitan City) Type of house where the respondent lives
1. House/Flat/Bunglow 2. House/Flat with 5 or more rooms
3. House/Flat with4 rooms 4. Houses/Flat with 3 rooms 5. Houses/Flat with 2 rooms
6. House with | room 7. Mainly Kutcha house 8. Slum/Jhuggi Jhopri 9. NA.
Z13b. (If Village) Type of house where the respondent lives
1. Pucca (both wall and roof made of pucca material)
2. Pucca-Kutcha (Either wall or roof is made of pucca material and other of kutcha material)
3. Kutcha/Mud houses (both wall and roof are made of kutcha material )
Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), 29 Rajpur Road, Dethi- 54. Ph: (011) 23942199 8
| 4 Status of Policing in India Reports: 2018 and 2019 187
4. Hut (both wall and roof made ofgrass, leaves, un-burnt brick orbamboo)
9.NA.

\
188 R. Jha and V. Mudgal

Household Information
Above Below
14. Total No. of family members living in the household:
Above 18 years: _ Below 18 years : (If more than 9, Code 9)

of survey):
Z15. Total agricultural land including orchard and plantation owned by your household (as on date
99)
(Ask in local units, but record in standard acres. If more than 99, Code
ifrespondent
In normal circumstances, what is your monthly household expenditure? (Record in Rupees,
gives no answer, fill 000000 in the box)

Do you or members of your household have the following: Yes No

. a. Car/Jeep/Van 1 2

b b. Scooter/Motorcycle/Moped | 2

c c. Airconditioner |
(d1. If resp. has computer/laptop)

d d. Computer/laptop/Ipad 1 2 1.With Intemet 2.Without Net 9. NA

e e. Fan/Cooler 1 2

f f. Washing machine/Microwave | 2

g g. Fridge | 2

h h. TV 1 2
i i. Bank/Post office account | J

j j. ATM/Debit/Credit card 1 2
k k. LPG gas 1 2
l 1. Toilet inside the house 1 Z

= m. Motorised pumping set 1 2

a n. Tractor 1 2
s o. Handpump inside the house l 2
Z18. Livestock: Total Number
a. a, Goat /sheep/pig:
b. b. Cow/Oxen /buffalo/Camel:
ic. c. Any other:
Total monthly household income - putting together the income of all members of the household?

(Record exact amount in Rupees. If respondent does not give any amount then record 000000)

Mobile/Telephone number of the respondent

Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), 29 Rajpur Road, Dethi- $4. Ph: (011) 23942199 10
4 Status ofPolicing inIndia Reports: 2018 and 2019 189

ox El. Were there any other people immediately present who might belistening during theinterview?
a 1, Noone 2.Husband —3. Other adult malefamily members 4. Adult female familymembers
5. Any malefrom neighborhood —_6. Any Female from neighborhood 7.Smallcrowd 8. Any Other
gg E2. —Inhow many questions didtherespondent check withothers forinformation toanswer forquestions?
1. None 2. One or two 3. Threetofive 4.Sixtoten 5. More than 10

- E3. — Atsome stage didyounotice something that made you feelthattherespondent was answering under some
fear or pressure? 1. Yes 2.No 3. Not sure
4. Which caste community was more in number inthe locality you visited? (Record
answer and consult
| | | | codeboor) ¢
~~ ES. — Whichreligious community was more innumber inthelocality you visited? (Record answer and for
coding refer toZ9Codes. )
g E6. Overall was the respondent cooperative? 1. Yes,very much 2.Somewhat 3. Notatall

= on orccacemga
tn Aan sara
a
Checked by the Supervisor: 1. Yes 2.No

% - 4 > pe) : mm isha F j = a ; «a

e oe|

Re ,NOLS
OPMCY EOS Ma TE 4 ae -
aia, 2 “i of»
 R. Jha and V. Mudgal

(If government house in Q1) Some people are dissatisfied with the conditions of government
provided housing quarters, while some people are satisfied with it. Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with
the provided housing quarters? (If satisfied, check ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’, If dissatisfied, check
‘very’ or ‘somewhat’) 1. Very satisfied 2. Somewhat satisfied 3. Somewhat dissatisfied
4. Very dissatisfied 8. No response 9. Notapplicable
(If somewhat or very dissatisfied in Q1a ) What is the single most important reason for dissatisfaction
with the staff quarters? (Note down answer. Coding will be done at CSDS)
98. can’t say/no answer 99. Notapplicable
(Ifgovernment house in Q1) Onascale of | to 10 where | is the smallest issue and 10 is the biggest
issue, Please rate these issue for your housing quarters:
Smallest Biggest Can't NA
issue issue say
ater pane (esas GR ae: eS ee be Saar lit ws
a. Water supply issues 01> 202 03060 05 1-06 0F7-= 8 09 AD 98 99

b. Garbage Disposal issues 01 02 03 04 O05 06 07 O8 09 10 98 99

c. Drainage system issues Ol 02 03 04 OS 06 O07 O8 09 10 98 99

d. Electricity issues 01 02 03 04 OS 06 O07 O8 09 10 98 99

e. Any other issue (Note answer. Coding will be done at CSDS)

(Ifgovernment house in Q1) After submitting the application how much time did it take for your
housing quarter's allocation? (Ifsomebody answers in ‘year/s', convert itinto '‘months')
(Number of months) 98. Can’t say/No answer 99. Notapplicable
On an average, how many hours a day do you actually work?
(Number of hours) 98. Can’t say/No answer
On an average, how many weekly off-days do you actually get?
(Number of days) 98. Can’t say/No answer
With regards to your duty hours, how many times in a week are you asked to stay back at the police
station even after duty hours? 1. Many times 2. Sometimes 3. Rarely
4, Never 8. Can't say
(If stays back in Q6.) What is generally the most important reason for staying back at police station after
duty hours? (Note down answer. Coding will be done at CSDS)
98. CS. 99.NA
(If stays back in Q6.) Do you get paid for the overtime work?

2. Yes 1.No 8. Can’t say 9.N.A.

Given a chance will you be willing to give up this profession and go for another job if the salary and
perks remainthe same? 2. Yes 1.No 8. Can't say
How many times are the following facilities provided at your police station or Jurisdiction—always,
sometimes or never? Always Sometimes Never No-response
a. Functional computer 1 2 3 8
b. Storage unit for the documents 1 2 3
¢. Functional CCTNS software 1 2 3
d. Forensic Technology l 2 3
Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), 29 Rajpur Road, Dethi- 54. Ph: (01 1) 23942199
2
 4 Status of Policing in India Reports: 2018 and 2019 19]

: And are these facilities available atyour police station/jurisdiction? Yes No No-response
= a, Clean Toilets y. 1 8

ar
7
oe
: e b. Separate toilet for women 2 ] 8

i ¢. Sitting area for people 2 1 8

; d. Drinking water 2 1 8

e. Facility for food for prisoners in police custody 2 1 8

f. Committee against sexual harassment 2 1 8
In the last
2-3 years, how much has the overall cleanliness in the police station increased? — Alot,
somewhat, very little, or as it is? 1. A lot 2. Somewhat 3. Very little
4. As itis 8. Can't say/No response
Considering the past 2-3 years of your work experience, How often have you ever been inthe following
situations - many times, few times, rarely or never? Many times Few times Rarely Never No-response
a. ou needed a vehicle but the government
vehicle/fuel was unavailable. 1 2 3 4 8
b. You had to spend money from your pocket for
expenses such as stationary, carbon paper etc. 1 73 3 a 8
¢. You were unable to reach the crime scene on time
because of shortage of staff atthe police station. 1 2 3 4 8
d. You were unable to escort an accused to the court
because of shortage of staff at the police station. 1 2 3 4 8
e. You could not investigate cybercrime because ; :
of lack oftechnology/experts. 1 2 3 4 8

Last2-3 years Before that Time of joining Never No-response

a About new technology I 2 3. 4

1 y5 en 4

ref seoha
of en gre
ni Be3 3 '
4
tee
Puss > not pak, 1 we . a 35 4

ie a - ~ et» ee ae astray 4
192 R. Jha and V. Mudgal

years?
Q12. Inyourjurisdiction, do you think the overall crime in your area has increasedordecreased inthe last 2-3
little’)
(f increased, check ‘increasedalot’or ‘increaseda little’; Ifdecreased, check ‘decreaseda lot’or ‘decreaseda
1. It has increased a lot 2.1t has increased a little 3. It has remained the same

5. It has decreased a lot t

8. Don’t know/Can’say
4. It has decreased a little
Qi2a. (If crime has increased ‘a lot’or ‘little’ in Q12 ) In your opinion what is the most important reason
behind this rise in crime? (Note down answer. Coding will be done at CSDS)
98. can’tsay 99. Notapplicable

Q12b. (If crime has decreased ‘a lot' or ‘little’ in Q12) In your opinion what is the most important reason
behind this decline in crime? (Note down answer. Coding will be done at CSDS)
98.can’tsay 99. Notapplicable

ati Q13. Now! willreadouttwo statements. Pleasetell me whichstatements youagree withthe most? (Read both thestatements)
Statement 1. _Increase in number of FIRs indicates an increase in the crimes in the given jurisdiction.
Statement 2. _Increase in number of FIRs does not indicate an increase in the crime rather it indicates
that their is only increase in registration of the complaints by police.
1. Agree with first statement 2. Agree with second statement 8. No answer/can’t say

‘ne Q14. nts

youagree
Nowlwillreadouttwo statements. Pleasetell me whichstateme with the most? Readboth thestatements)
Statement 1. No matter how serious a complaint, there must be a preliminary investigation before registering a FIR.
Statement 2. _Forall the serious complaints, FIR must bedirectly registered without any preliminary investigation.
1. Agree with first statement 2.Agree with second statement 8. No answer/can’t say
Q15. Considering your own work experience in police, to what extent are these following complaints false and
motivated - A lot, somewhat, very rare or none atall? Alot Somewhat Very rare Not at all No response
a. Domestic Violence 1 2 3 4 8

b. Murder 1 2 3 7 8

c. Theft and Robbery 1 2 3 - 8

d. Crimes under SC/ST act l 2 3 - 8

e. Dowry l 2 3 - 8

f, Sexual Harassment 1 2 3 4 8
g. Rape 1 2 3 - 8
Q16. Inyour opinion, what is the most important step that the police should take to control crime? (Note
down answer. Coding will be done at CSDS)
98. can’t say
Q17. Onascale of one to ten, please tell me how useful the following are the following measures for reducing
crime in your area-10 being most useful and 1 being not useful at all: (2fno answer, please code 98. T
o
——
—

can’t say/no answer) Not usefal Most useful |

en i: Ai CE Ps ES mee Ges i:
a. Increase street lighting in high crime area. O1 02 03 04 0S 06 OF O8 O98 10 :

b. Increasing the number of police personnel. 01 02 03 04 OS 06 07 O8 09 10 :

¢, Installation of CCTV cameras inallareas, 01 02 03 04 OS 06 O07 O8 09 10 |

d, More preventive arrests of anti-social elements.01 02 03 04 O05 06 O07 O8 09 10
e. Improving the network of informers/mukhbirs. 01 02 03 04 OS 06 O07 O8 09 10

f. Form special squads for curbing eve teasing. O01 02 03 04 OS 06 O07 O8 O98 10

g- Appointing civilians as Special Police Officers. 01 02 03 04 OS 06 O07 O8 O89 10

Centre for the Study ofDeveloping Societies (CSDS), 29 Rajpur Road, Dethi- $4. Ph: (011) 23942199 4
4 Status of Policing in India Reports: 2018 and 2019 193

Considering the past 2-3 years of your work experience, how ofien have you encountered the following
problems during investigation ofacrime - many times, sometimes, rarely or never?
Many times Sometimes Rarely Never No-response
a, Witnesses unwilling to cooperate l 2 3 4 8

b. Victims unwilling to cooperate I 2 3 ” 8

c. Lack oftime to investigate | 2 3 4 8

d. Departmental pressure l 2 3 7 8

e. Political pressure I 2 3 * 8

f. Weak laws that favor accused l 2 3 + 8

g- Prosecution duties | 2 3 4 8
Of the various things which hinder an investigation, which is the one that hinders it the most? (Note down
answer. Coding will be done at CSDS)

e
a ae 98. can't my
In your opinion, to what extent is a common person hesitant to contact the police even when there is a need
- very hesitant, somewhat hesitant, hardly hesitant or not hesitant at all?
|. Very hesitant 2. Somewhat hesitant 3. Hardly hesitant 4. Notatall hesitant 8. No response
. (Ifhesitant) \n your opinion, what is the main reason behind this hesitance? (Record exactly, consult
code book and code later)
98. can’t say 99. Not applicable
Imagine your daughter is in another city/village, beyond your zone of influence and she witnesses a crime.
Would you advise her to go to the police station alone to report the crime?
2. Yes 1.No 8. Can't say
There is a perception among common people that the numbers of crime reported are lesser as compared
to the number of crimes committed in reality. To what extent do you think this is true? (Iftrue, check
‘completely true’ or ‘somewhat true’; iffalse check ‘completely false’ or ‘somewhat false’)
1. Completely true 2.Somewhattrue 3. Somewhat false 4. Completely false 8. No response
Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?(Ifagree,
check ‘fullyagree’or‘somewhat agree’;if
disagree, check ‘fully disagree’ or ‘somewhat disagree’) Agree Disagree No response
Fully Somewhat Somewhat Fully
a. The workload makes it difficult for me to
do my job well. 1 2 3 4 8
b. I am not able to devote enough time to my
family due to policing duties. 1 2 3 A 8
c. Lam permitted to do only those tasks that
are asked by my seniors. 1 2 3 4 8
d. My workload is affecting my physical and
mental health conditions. 1 2 3 4 8
e. My salary is at par with the kind of work I do. 1 2 3 4 8
f. My work is evaluated in a neutral way. l 2 3 d 8
How often do the following instances happen in the police-workplaces - very often, somewhat often,
somewhat rare or never?
‘Senior officers talk with their juniors in a bad language.’
1. Very often 2. Somewhat often 3.Somewhatrare 4. Never 8.No response
Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), 29 Rajpur Road, Dethi- $4.Ph: (011) 23942199 5
194 R. Jha and V. Mudgal

When dealing with cases involving influential persons, how often does the police feel pressure from the
following people - Always, sometimes, rarely ornever? Always Sometimes Rarely Never No-response

a. Pressure from seniors in the police force. l 2 3 4 8

b. Pressure from politicians. l 2 3 4 8

¢. Pressure from common public. l 2 3 4 8

d. Pressure from media. | 2 3 ~ 8

e. Pressure from human rights organization &NGO. ! 2 3 4 8

f. Pressure from Judiciary. | 2 3 4 8

(Ifthey feel pressure in Q25) What is the most common consequences of not complying with such pressures?
1. Punishment posting/ transfer to another area 2. Suspension/dismissal from service
3. Threat to personal safety, physical assault 4. Harsh public criticism
5. Any other (record exactly) - 8. No response 9. Notapplicable
Q27. According to you, do the following instances happen in the police?
‘Senior officers ask their juniors to do household jobs/private-personal jobs even though they’re not meant to do it
2. Yes 1.No 8. Can'tsay
Q28. Now, I will read out two statements. Please tell which one you agree the most with. (Read both thestatements)
Statement 1. For small/minor offenses, small/minor punishments by the police is better than legal trial.
Statement 2. For small/minor offenses also, there should be a complete legal trial.
1. Agree with first statement 2. Agree with second statement 8. No answer/can’t say
Sometimes there are instances, when the mob tries to punish the culprits. In your opinion, to what extent
is it natural for the mob to punish the culprits on the following issues - to a large extent, somewhat, rarely
or notat all? Toa large extent Somewhat Rarely Not at all No-response
a. When there is a case of cow-slaughter. 1 2 3 4 8
b. When there is a case of child kidnapping. 1 2 3 - 8
c. When there is a case of rape. l 2 3 - 8
d. When there is a case of road accident due
to driver’snegligence. 1 2 3 4 8
Q30. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? For the greater good of the society, It is alright for
the police to be violent towards criminals (If agree, check ‘fully agree’ or ‘somewhat agree’; ifdisagree,
check ‘fully disagree’ or ‘somewhat disagree’) 1, Fully agree 2. Somewhat agree
3. Somewhat disagree 4. Fully disagree 8.DK
31. In your opinion, to what extent are the following people naturally prone towards committing crimes -
very much, somewhat, somewhat less or not at all?
Very much Somewhat Somewhat less Not at all No-response |
a. Migrant people 1 2 3 J 8 |
b. Hijras/trangender people ] 2 3 7 8 :
¢. Street vendors/hawkers 1 2 3 ~ 8
d. Muslim people l 2 3 4 8
e. OBC people 1 2 3 a 8
f. Upper caste Hindu people 1 2 3 4 8
Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), 29 Rajpur Road, Dethi- $4. Ph: (011) 23942199 6
 4 Status of Policing in India Reports: 2018 and 2019 195

Very much Somewhat Somewhat less Not at all No-response

g- People from poor households 1 4

h. Nat/saperas/NTs/DNTs people 1 4
ee
et
ee
-qe i. Tribal people l 4

> j- Dalit people 1 4

k. Illiterate people 1 4 oo
co
oo

F- 1, Industrialists 1 WY
NY
NR
MV
wv
rv Ww
YB
Ye
Vv» 4

m. Slum-dwellers 1 2 3 4 8

Q32. There are various societal groups inpolice. According toyou, towhat extent are the following groups
given equal treatment - completely, somewhat, somewhat less or not at all? |Somewhat Not at No
Very much Somewhat less all response

a. a. Tribal police person & non tribal police person personnel | 2 3 4 8

b. Minority religion police & Other religion Police personnel | 2 3 4 8

e ¢. Women police person & men police person personnel | 2 3 a 8

d. Dalit police person & non dalit policeperson personnel 1 Pd 3 4 8

e e. Junior police personnel and the senior police personnel —_1 2 3 4 8
- a) —
Many people argue that working inthe police isnot appropriate for women. Now I am going to read
out some such arguments. Please tell me whether you agree or disagree with these arguments?
(If agree, check ‘fully agree’ or‘somewhat
agree’; ifdisagree, check ‘fully disagree’
or ‘somewhat
disagree’) Agree Disagree No response
Fully Somewhat Somewhat Fully
a.Being inthepolice requires physical strengthand
aggressive behavior which women lack. | 2 3 4 2 2
boll ‘ b. Women police are incapable ofhandling high
" _ intensity
crimes andcases. 1 2 3 4 8
a ¢.Because ofinflexible workinghours,i isnotalrightfor
. se att
Togaa 7 mca rs
1 2 3 4
sms te nye agi tn as
196 R. Jha and V. Mudgal

Q36. Now| will read out two statements. Please tell me which statements you agree with the most? (Read
both the statements)
than a legal trial.
Statement 1. For the greater good ofthe society, Killing dangerous criminals is better
Statement 2. No matter how dangerous a criminal, police should try to catch the criminals and give
them a legal trial.
1. Agree with first statement 2. Agree with second statement 8. No answer/can’t say

= Q37. In 2006, the Supreme Court passed a landmark judgment on police reforms in the case of Prakash
Singh vs Union of India. Are you aware of this judgment?
2. Yes 1.No 8. Can't say

nae Q37a. (Ifyes) Can you name one of the directives given by the Court in this case? (Note down answer.
Coding will be done at CSDS) 98. can’t say 99. Notapplicable
Q38. According to you, how important is it for the police to receive training on the following issues - very
important, somewhat important, less important, and not importantatall? Less Notatall No
Very important Somewhat important Important response

a. About new technology l 2 3 7 8

b. To solve cyber crimes 1 2 3 - 8

c. About forensic technology | 2 3 7 8

d. About human rights 1 2 3 7 8

e. About crowd Control ] 2 3 4 8

f. About caste sensitization 1 2 3 4 8

g. About physical training 1 2 3 - 8

h. About weapons training 1 2 3 4 8

i. About new rules/orders 1 F) 3 4 8

j. About sensitization towards women 1 2 3 7 8

ced Q39. Ifpolice officers are posted in their home district, would they be more efficient or less efficient?
1. More efficient 2. Less efficient 3. Doesn*t make any difference 4.DK

bag Q40. Ascompared to other institutions of the government, are the police more corrupt or less corrupt?
1. More corrupt 2. Less corrupt 3. As corruptas others. 4. Notcorruptatall 8. No response

Q41. Inyour opinion, what are the two steps that the government must take to ensure that police can do its
job in a better way?(Note down answer. Coding will be done at CSDS)

98. can’t say

b. 98. can’t say

BACKGROUND DATA

BS. What is your age? (in completed years) 98. No Response (Code 95 for 95 yrs & above)

B6. Gender: 1. Male 2. Female 3. Other

= B7. Up to what level have you studied? (Record exactly and consult code book)
9. No
Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), 29 Rajpur Road, Dethi- $4. Ph: (011) 23942199 8
 4 Status of Policing in India Reports: 2018 and 2019 197

ay a. Upto what level have your father and mother studied? (Record exactly and consult code book)
a Mother: ————_—s«9. No response
gz, And what is your caste group? 1. Scheduled Caste (SC) 2. Scheduled Tribe (ST)
3. Other Backward Classes (OBC) 4. Other
B&b. What is your Caste/Jati-biradari/Tribe name? (Consult code book for code)

2 . Whatisyourreligion? |. Hindu 2. Muslim 3. Christian 4. Sikh 5. Buddhist/Neo Buddhist

6, Jain 7. Parsi 8.Noreligion 9.Others (Specify)
B10. Are youmarried? 1. Married 2. Married (No Gauna/not started living together)
3. Widowed 4. Divorced 5. Separated 6. Deserted
; 7. Unmarried/Single 8. Live with partner but not married 9.NR
7 fen. What kind of mobile phone do you have- a simple phone or a smart phone with a touch screen?
‘ 1. Simple phone 2. Smart phone 3. Donothave aphone 8.NR
k bool |i1a. (If respondent has a mobile phone) Does you phone have an internet connection?
2. Yes 1.No 8.NR 9.NA
iF ~— [B12._ Atyourhome, whatlanguage doyouspeakinthemostwhileconversing withyourfamily members?
[ (Note down answer and consult codebook for codes) 98. No response
a 13. Typeofhouse
inwhich respondent lives?
ie 1. House/Flat with 5 ormore rooms 2. House/ Flat with4 rooms 3. House/ Flat with 3 rooms
4. House with 2rooms 5. House
with | room 6. kuecha house
ae 4. Totalno.of family members living in thehousehold? Adults___Children__(Imore
than9,code9)
what is your monthly household expenditure? (Record in rupees and in case
az ae cae ofnoanswer fill000000 inthebox) :
16. Do you ormembers ofyour household have thefollowing things?
Yes No
a. Car/Jeep/Van 2 1

b. Scooter/Motorcycle/Moped 2 Loe

2 1

See
2. Nhe

TN, . epee es
pe ae Veetoul oat apesae , -
Ame t.ho eels oe i aeee ‘
cau ib ae >. Co ee cas
‘2 P ia ae | om =

% i Dn 2gae}.
a : ee om »ahi e
oa |
198 R. Jha and V. Mudgal

State ID Respondent
No.
POLICE STUDY (Family Member) - 2019 ba.
Lokniti, CSDS-Common Cause Study
. State Name: ANDHRA PRADESH

District HQ/City Name:

Police residence address:

Closest Police Station:

. Location: 1.Capital City 2.City 3. District

Head Quarter

. Date of Interview: (dd/mm/yyyy):

. Name of Investigator: (Roll no. code in box):

INVESTIGATOR’S INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF INFORMED CONSENT
My Name is andI am from Lokniti-CSDS: Centre for the Study of
the Developing Societies (Please mention your university's name here), a research institute based in Delhi.
We are doing a survey of police across the country, to gather their perspective towards the police system
and criminal justice system. It covers aspects such as conditions of housing quarters, duty hours, work-
stress, obstacles in investigation, etc,
We are interviewing thousands ofpolice personnel and their family, across the country. Based on this
study, a report on the status of policing in India will be produced.
This survey is an independent study and it is not linked to any political party or government agency.
Whatever information you provide will be kept strictly confidential. The findings of the survey will be
used for research work.
Participation in this survey is voluntary and it is entirely up to you answer or not to answer any
question that I ask. We hope that you will take part in this survey since your participation is important.
It usually takes 30-40 minutes to complete this interview. Please spare some time for the interview and
help me in completing this survey.
. Respondent agrees to be interviewed.
2. Respondent does not agree to be interviewed.
What is the rank of the person who works in police?
1. Constable 2. Head constable 3. Assistance sub-inspector 4.Sub-inspector 5. Inspector
6. Circle Inspector 7, ASP/Dy, Supretendent of Police 8. Others 9. Can't say
What is your relation to the respondent/person who works in police?
1. Partner 2. Their children 3, Their parents 4. Siblings 5. Their Parent in law 6. Others 8.NR

What is your age? (in completed years) 98. No Response (Code 95 for 95 yrs & above)
What is your main occupation? (Record & consult codebook. If retired, find out previous job. If student/
housewife, then note that down) 98. NR
Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the provided staff quarters? (If satisfied, check ‘very’ or ‘some
what’, If dissatisfied, check ‘whether’ or ‘somewhat’)
1. Very satisfied 2. Somewhat satisfied 3. Somewhat dissatisfied 4. Very dissatisfied 8. No response
(If dissatisfied), what is the single most important reason for dissatisfaction with the staff quarters (Note
down answer. Coding will be done at CSDS)
98. can’t say 99. Notapplicable
It is often said that policing is a very stressful job. Do you agree or disagree with the statement? (Ifagree,
check ‘fully agree’ or ‘somewhat agree’; if disagree, check ‘fully disagree’ or ‘somewhat disagree’)
1. Fullyagree 2. Somewhat agree 3. Somewhat disagree 4. Fully disagree 8.DK
(Ifagrees) What do you think is the main reason for such a high level of stress? (Record exactly, consult
code book and code later)
98. can’t say 99. Notapplicable
In your opinion, does your spouse/parent/child (Use the relation depending upon respondent's
relationship with the police officer) spend enough time with the family? ie
1. Sufficient time 2. Less than sufficient 3. Far less than sufficient 8. No response
Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), 29 Rajpur Road, Dethi- $4. Ph: (011) 23942199 10
 4 Status of Policing in India Reports: 2018 and 2019 199

3 During the last 2-3 years, has your entire family (entire family means including the police officer):
Yes No No-response
‘ a. Been outside on a leisure holiday? 2 1 8
b. Visited relatives out of town/village? 2 I x
7 ¢. Gone for a religious pilgrimage? 2 1 8
Is your spouse/parent/child (Use the relation depending upon respondent’s relationship with the
police officer) at home during the following festivals—Always, sometimes, rarely or never?
Always Sometimes Rarely Never No-response
a. Diwali l 2 3 ” 8
b. Holi I 2 3 + 8
e ¢. Eid 1 2 3 . 8
d. State’s important festival 1 2 3 4 8
Please tell mewhether you would agree ordisagree withthefollowing statements? (Ifagree, check
‘fully agree’ or ‘somewhat agree’; if disagree, check ne yo or somewhat disagree’)

a. As compared to others, police officers are more

prone to getting angry and irritable more easily. 1 2 3 4 8
b. As compared to others, Police officers behave
more badly with their subordinate staff. 1 2 3 4 8
¢. As compared to others, Police officers behave
more badly with their family. 1 2 3 4 8
d. As compared to others, Police officers are more
prone to alcoholism. 1 2 3 4 8
e. As compared to others, Police officers suffer
: more from mental health issue. ve: 2 3 4 8
f. As compared to others, Police system is more .
unfair towards those at the lower rank. 1 y 3 4 8
im 0a. If given an option, would you like your son to join the police profession in the future?
2. Yes 1.No 8. Can't say
rn er ee eae
1.No 8. Can’tsay af
Isao ntti aynin
termi
200 R. Jha and V. Mudgal

References

Bureau of Police Research and Development, Ministry of Home Affairs. (2019). Data on Police
Organisations 2019: https://knoema.com/atlas/sources/BPRD?regionId=IN https://www.the-
star.com/news/crime/2008/01/19/youre_safer_than_you_think_statistics_expert.htm]l
Lorrigio, P. (2008). You’re safer than you think: Statistics expert. Toronto Star.
Rao, U.N. B., & Tiwari, A. (2016). “A study on non-registration of crimes: Problems & solutions”
(Rep.). Bureau of Police Research and Development, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of
India: http://www.bprd.nic.in/WriteReadData/userfiles/file/20 16 12200235022990797Report-
Non-Registrationof CrimesProblems&Solutions.pdf
United Nations Office on Drug and Crime, Criminal Justice. (2011). Handbook on police account-
ability, oversight and integrity. UN Office on Drug and Crime, Criminal Justice Handbook
Series. UN Publications: https://www.unodc.org/pdf/criminal_justice/Handbook_on_police_
Accountability_Oversight_and_Integrity.pdf
 Chapter 5
The Karnataka Crime Victimization
Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National
Crime Victim Survey

Sudhir Krishnaswamy and Varsha Aithala

1 Introduction

There have been more crime victim surveys (hereafter “CVS”) in the last five years
than in the last six decades since India became an independent republic. Given the
enormous scale and expense of a national CVS, civil society groups have focused
on a single or a few major cities. Significantly, no previous survey has generated
data on the nature of rural crime victimization. Azim Premji University carried out
the Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019 (hereafter “KCVS”) in
2018-2019 to fill these gaps through a survey of crime victimization in a region of
India. The methods and results of KCVS are critical for the formulation of a national
CVS which is currently underway.'
KCVS is the most recently conducted CVS in India and is the first State-wide
survey that allows for a fuller understanding of crime victimization across urban
and rural locations. This survey builds on valuable work carried out earlier. The
CHRI Survey (2015)? and SATARC (2017)? surveyed incidents of crime victimiza-
tion in the urban populations of Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, and Bangalore. The
KCVS included several major and minor urban centers like Bengaluru, Mangaluru,

‘Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India “All India Citizens Survey of Police Services”
(February 21, 2019) https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/PRESSRELEASE_21022019.pdf.
2 Abhijit Sarkar, Dripto Mukhopadhyay, Cheryl Blake and Devika Prasad (2015) “Crime
Victimization and Safety Perception: A Public Survey of Delhi and Mumbai”, New Delhi:
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative.
3 Avanti Durani, Rithika Kumar, Renuka Sane and Neha Sinha (2017) “Safety trends and reporting
of crime” Mumbai: [DFC Institute.

S. Krishnaswamy - V. Aithala (24)

National Law School of India University, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 201

Switzerland AG 2022
S. Krishnaswamy et al. (eds.), Crime Victimisation in India, Springer Series on
Asian Criminology and Criminal Justice Research,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03 1-12251-4_5
202 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

Mysuru, and Dharwad as well as the rural population of Karnataka State. The sur-
vey is wider in scope, to track crime incidence, reporting, and perceptions of safety
and security and thereby allows us to study primary victimization (victims’ experi-
ences of crimes) and secondary victimization (arising from the treatment of victims
by criminal justice agencies - the police, prosecution, and courts).* It circumscribes
secondary victimization to focus only on the police.
KCVS is designed to allow for the analysis of crime victimization for several
diverse variables - across geographies (police administrative ranges and residential
location), crime types, gender, caste, religion, and economic class of respondents.
Such analyses illuminate the institutional and social character of crime, the lived
experience of crime-before, during, and after crimes occur, and the relationship
between offenders and victims. The socioeconomic background, age, and gender of
the victims as well as the nature and severity of the offenses influence people’s will-
ingness to report crime and its registration by police authorities (Broadhurst et al.,
2011). This is borne out by recent Indian studies too. The SPIR (2018)° found that
people’s socioeconomic class had an evident influence on their tendency to approach
the police. The rich and better educated population were twice as likely to seek
police assistance on issues than the poor. Our analysis therefore increases the use-
fulness of this crime victimization survey as a tool for policymakers to understand
the trends of crime, reporting of crime, and recording practices.
KCVS, like other recent surveys, covered personal crimes (murder, homicide,
kidnapping and abduction, grievous hurt, assault and death through negligence and
extortion) and household property crimes (robbery, trespass, breach of trust, motor
vehicle theft, cheating, and forgery). However, it went further to include law and
order offenses (riots, arson, unlawful assembly, bribery, and assault) and offenses by
government officials (bribery and assault). By including all these major offenses,
KCVS presents a fuller picture of crime victimization than any other crime victim
survey in India so far.
Crimes of a sensitive nature such as sexual harassment, assault, dowry crimes,
and crimes against children were not included, as these require stringent survey
protocols to be followed, particularly with respect to security and privacy of respon-
dents. As other surveys like the NFHS already cover gender-based crime, this gap in
the KCVS may be plugged by integrating this data set.
KCVS did not survey some serious crimes such as the sale of illegal arms, nar-
cotics, information technology/intellectual property violations, financial offenses
and cybercrime, smuggling, crimes by foreigners, bonded labor, and crimes covered
by special and local laws. As these crimes are very rare, the small sample size of
KCVS is unlikely to register enough occurrences to allow for meaningful statistical
analysis.

‘Lorraine Wolhuter, Neil Olley and David Denham (2009) “Victimology: Victimization and
Victims’ Rights” London and New York: Routledge-Cavendish, p.33.
‘Common Cause & Lokniti - Center for the Study of Developing Societies (2018) “Status of
Policing in India Report, 2018: A Study of Performance and Perceptions” New Delhi:
Common Cause.
 5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National 203

In this chapter, we describe, analyze, and visualize the key findings that shape
our understanding of the experiences of crime victimization in Karnataka. The
chapter begins by clarifying the critical methodological choices made to ensure that
the survey is comparable with available official crime statistics and allows for
administrative insights into police organization in Karnataka. This sets the Stage for
a more rigorous social scientific causal analysis on questions ofcrime victimization.
We explain the experience of crime by various demographic groups to understand
the social and economic determinants of crime victimization, the likelihood of
reporting, and perceptions of safety and security of people in the State. We conclude
with a few useful lessons for India’s first national crime victimization survey.

2 Sampling and Survey Methodology

Sampling Strategy

Using police divisions for crime surveys is an internationally recognized, standard

sampling procedure. Karnataka has 30 administrative districts, organized into seven
Police Ranges - Central, Northern, North-Eastern, Bellary, Eastern, Southern, and
Western - each consisting of three to six districts and headed by an Inspector General
of Police. Table 5.1 lists the Police Ranges in Karnataka and the districts covered by
them. Within these Police Ranges, major cities - Bengaluru, Mysuru, Hubbali —
Dharwad, Mangaluru, Belagavi, and Kalaburgi have Police Commissionerates.
KCVS collected data from the six Police Ranges that existed during the survey
period. The Ballari Police Range was created after the completion of our survey.
The Ballari Police Range which includes the districts of Ballari, Koppala, and
Raichur was carved out of the North-Eastern Police Range described in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2 lists and Fig. 5.1 shows the Police Ranges in Karnataka as they existed at
the time of the survey and the districts covered by our survey.

Sampling Method

KCVS was administered as a household survey with a structured survey instrument

that fits diverse experiences into predetermined response categories. KCVS used the
multistage stratified random sampling method. The sample consisted of 2002 house-
holds (urban to rural proportion of 700:1300) across six Police Ranges which were
representative at household and individual level. The sample was weighted along:
urban-rural areas, class, religion, caste, gender, and geographical zones, based on
Karnataka’s population taken from the Census of India, 2011, and a booster to
Muslim and Dalit populations to account for their underrepresentation.
The method of stratification and sample size allocation is shown in Table 5.3.
204 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

Table 5.1 Districts and Police Ranges in Karnataka

SI. No. |Range ~ Tpistricts—«*«| SI. No.|Range Districts
l. Central Range, | Bengaluru Southern Range, Chamarajanagar
Bengaluru Chikkaballapura Mysuru Hassan
Tumakuru Kodagu
Kolar Mandya
Mysore
2: Northern Range, Western Range, Chikkmagaluru
Belagavi (Bijapur) Mangaluru
Dakshina Kannada
Udupi
Uttara Kannada
3: Eastern Range, a: North Eastern Bidar
Davangere Range, Kalaburagi | Kalaburagi
(Gulbarga)
Yadgir
Shivmogga
4. Ballari Range,
Ballari Koppal a

Source: Official website, Karnataka State Police (https://ksp.karnataka.gov.in/page/About+Us/

Organization/en)

Table 5.2 Districts and Police Ranges in KCVS

SI. No Districts
T, Central North-Eastern | Ballari
Bidar
Kalaburagi (Gulbarga)
bse Koppala
Raichur
Yadgir
2. - Chamarajanagar
Hassan
Kodagu
Mandya
Mysore
3. Eastern Western Chikkamagaluru

RAAT | se 988
Dakshina
Udupi
Kannada
eae EE Uttara Kannada
Source: KCVS 2018-2019, Azim Premji University
 >_ The » Karnat
kK
aka Crime
. >
Victim
Vie
ization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National 205

Culbarga

Range

@ North-Eastern

Northern
Raichur

® Central

™ Eastern

@ Western
Bellary
Uttara
Kannada ®@ Southern

Chikka-
Chikkamagalur ballapur
Udupi
Bangalore
Rural
Dakshina Hassan .
Kannada So i
Urban
Rama-
Mandya nagara

Kodagu

Mysore

Chamarajanagar

Source: KCVS 2018-19, Azim Premji University

Fig. 5.1 Districts and police ranges in KCVS

The sample size was calculated based on the number of respondents to represen-
tatively cover an entire state. As data were collected at the household level, a sample
of 20 households was selected within each Police Range. The villages and wards
within every range were organized in ascending order of population and the required
number of villages and wards were selected through the Probability Proportional to
Size method. The selected wards and villages in every range were divided into four
geographical segments of equal population. Five households were selected from
each of the four segments using the left hand rule of field movement starting from
the center of the segment for a total of 20 households in each segment. Survey
S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

Ayissioatuy) fwolg Wizy ‘61-8107 SAD :997n0g

i a 7] ns ee: 1 a a
:
|
|

ne ee Mee Lega] waoqnos

2
y] ee lz 61] | ~~—ste|_~_—~=«éEL'|
¢ mae
EE
el 87 697
i)
CL
a
elt L81) 77 SIZ 11 “oN
qQUON
|
ieee uz] go] CGE| GT |LEE'RSLIT| WHOVON
it] "on eoy oe eS cor] enePLoT|
oe]——~=sBS|~——SC9@| Tena
rrr i
JO9Jas 0} yOoJas 07} ozs ojduwres uonejndod I ‘dod payesoyye |uoneindog snsuao | d5ueI so1j0g
SpreM JO"ON | SdSeIIIA JOON ueqin uegin% | ajdues jesny| yeIny%)| zis a[dues [ej0], Y 110Z
uoneindog
uoNeoo]]e pue
uonRoyHeNS oZIs
aj]dures ¢°S
aIqey
206
 5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National. 207

questions were directed at the head of the household. Where the male head of house-
hold was unavailable to answer the survey questions (on account of work), the
female members of the household answered the questions.

Questionnaire Scope and Design

The survey questionnaire consisted of three parts to collect detailed information

about crimes — Part A: General Questions, Part B: Incident Report, and Part C:
Socio Demographic Details. Respondents were asked if they had been a victim of a
crime in the year previous to the survey. If the respondent said “yes”, an incident
report was completed with the details of the crime experienced, such as the victim-
offender relationship, time and place of occurrence, use of weapons, and nature of
injury. Then social and demographic information of the respondent including age,
sex, caste, marital status, education level, and income was recorded. We also col-
lected information on respondent’s primary spoken language and occupation, length
of residence in their locality and in Karnataka, and the number of times respondents
moved residence in five years. However, KCVS did not specifically explore victim-
ization of recent migrants and non-natives by recording their length of stay and
based on whether they spoke the primary language of the region.
The KCVS questionnaire was methodically revised and edited to ensure simplicity
of language and translated into conversational Kannada by Sigma Research and
Consulting Pvt Ltd and then reviewed by an in-house translator at Azim Premji
University. Respondents were not expected to describe or classify the crimes they had
experienced. Interviewers drew conclusions based on the victim’s description as to the
nature of the crime. The individual responses and incident reports were read together
and matched to the corresponding category of crime as described under the criminal
statutes after the survey was completed. For crimes committed by government officials
however, incident reports were not created. This was owing to the highly sensitive
nature of the information provided and to protect the respondents from any unfavorable
actions based purely on the victims' narratives and not corroborated independently.

Survey Administration

Sigma Research and Consulting Pvt Ltd administered the survey and conducted
interviews from April 24, 2017 to May 13, 2017 covering 2002 respondents across
the State. Standard interview protocols were strictly followed in the conduct of the
interviews and in recording the information collected in the field. All field officers
were trained on the techniques of conducting interviews and procedures to be fol-
lowed. All Police Ranges in the State were intimated about the interviews via letters
in advance of fieldwork. In particular, the Southern Range police acknowledged
receipt of this intimation and offered assistance, if any was required, with the
208 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

survey. Despite these precautions however, owing to the sensitive nature of the
topic, in one instance, interviewers experienced intimidation and harassment from a
local political group in an urban area where interviews were conducted. A group of
local political workers raised an issue with the interviews being conducted in their
neighborhood and took the surveyors to the local police station. The survey team
discussed the matter with the police and were asked to return to their homes. The
survey organization then changed the team and sent in a different team of surveyors
to that location to continue with the interviews. Once the data were collected, it was
|
checked for errors, and standard data confirmation and validations checks were car-
ried out by our team at Azim Premji University. After confirmation, the data were
analyzed using the STATA software program.

3 Key Findings

We examined three main aspects of crime victimization: victimization from specific

CLC
CLC
O

incidents of crimes, reporting behavior, and people’s perception of neighbor-

hood safety.
1. Crime Victimization
Crime-related data for each calendar year (January 1 to December 31) that is
entered by the police at the district/police station level are validated at the police
station level. This is consolidated by police agencies at the level of the individual
state/union territory, revalidated and provided to the National Crime Records Bureau
(NCRB). The NCRB further validates this information collated from all states and
union territories and metropolitan cities of India. Discrepancies or errors in the data
are communicated to the respective state/union territory for rectification. The final
data received from the states/union territories are analyzed and consolidated to gen-
erate the national level crime data for the country. This is presented through the
annual “Crime in India” reports released by the NCRB.
Official crime statistics released by the NCRB cannot provide the required infor-
mation to assess the true extent of underreporting of crimes. These data are most
often fragmented, incomplete, nonstandard, and duplicated at various levels, mak-
ing it difficult to get a comprehensive picture of the nature of crime.
Therefore, independent of these official numbers, in our survey, we first calcu-
lated the actual crime rate in Karnataka, using incident reports that detailed all inci-
dents of crimes (time and location of crime; description and value of property) as
self-reported by our survey respondents. This showed that the actual rate of crimes
was much higher than the official crime rate (calculated as the number of incidents
of crime in a region per 1,00,000 of the population) for Karnataka. For instance, the
rate for crimes against the body as recorded by the police was 96 per 1,00,000
 5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National.
209

Victimised by multiple crimes

Incidents of Victimisation

= Property Offences
« Once
a
# Crimes against Body

« Thrice
# Law and Order Crimes
« Four times or
more
= Crimes by Governemnt
Officials

Note: All figures are in percentages Note: All figures are in percentages

Source: KCVS 2018-19, Azim Premji University

Fig. 5.2 Victimization

citizens.° The crime rate we calculated for the same offense is 4066 per 1,00,000
citizens (roughly 42 times the official figure!).
This also convinced us to move away from the official records of crime and use
a new baseline measure of crime, the “KCVS Victimization Rate”, calculated as the
number of victims of at least one category of crime, per 100 of the population. This
covers crimes not reported to the police by the victims or even if reported, not
recorded by the police. Applying the victimization rate as a measure of crime is very
useful as this is derived from people’s actual experiences of crime and so, forms a
better means to understand the true nature of crime. This also has a strong influence
on people’s perceptions of safety and security in a geographical area.
The KCVS Victimization Rate is around 30%, three times higher than that
reported by other surveys like the World Value Survey (“WVS 6 (2010-2014)”) and
nearly double the rate reported by the CHRI Survey. This translates to 725 separate
incidents of victimization experienced by 602 survey respondents over the observa-
tion period, meaning that our respondents were victims of more than one crime over
this period (Fig. 5.2).
When we review the KCVS results across the four main types of crime - property
offenses, crimes against body, law and order crimes, and crimes by government offi-
cials (including their sub categories as described earlier), we observe that across the
variables of interest we listed earlier, victimization rates from crimes vary greatly
across gender, geographies, and caste; and not as much on the other variables we
examined, namely, residential locations, religion, and economic class of respondents.

6 According to the National Crime Records Bureau ‘Crime in India: 2018’, in 2018, India’s official
crime rate per lakh population was 383.5, for offences affecting the human body, the crime rate
was 78.6. Karnataka recorded the rate of total cognizable crimes per 1,00,000 population at 249.7,
of which, the crime rate for offences affecting the human body was 66.2
http://nerb.gov.in/StatPublications/CII/CII2018/pdfs/CI1% 202018 %20SNAPSHOTS%20
_STATES.pdf, accessed February 4, 2020.
210 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

Female Respondent
Male Respondent

7
1

\
® Property Offences Offences against the body = Property Offences
= Law and Order Offences Crimes by Govt Officials « Offences against the body

Note: All figures are in percentages

Source: KCVS 2018-19, Azim Premji University

Fig. 5.3 Prevalence of crime by male and female respondents

KCVS results show that 9% more males report being victims of crime than females.
Men have a 26% higher probability of being victimized when compared to women.
We observe this for all categories of crime reported - property crimes, crimes against
the body, and law and order offenses (Fig. 5.3). The gender difference in victimization
from crimes against the body is pronounced in urban areas than in rural areas, where
6% more men report being victims of crime than women. These results are interesting
when compared with the conclusions of contemporary international surveys like the
VOCS (South Africa) (2017), which notes that female-headed householders are vic-
timized at twice the rate of male-headed households in South Africa.
Across Police Ranges in Karnataka, the Northern Range (at 38%) and North-
Eastern Range have the highest rates of victimization from crimes while less than a
quarter of the respondents in the Central and Western Ranges experienced
victimization.
Respondents belonging to the Dalit and Adivasi castes suffered higher rates of
victimization from crimes, followed by the OBCs and then the Upper Caste. Dalits
are particularly vulnerable to victimization from crime, more than 48% more likely
than members of the Upper Caste.
Based on these observations, we can conclude that in Karnataka, crime victim-
ization reduces with an increase in social and economic status and privilege. This is
consistent with criminological research around the world which finds a strong rela-
tionship between racial and ethnic identity and victimization. Socially and econom-
ically disadvantaged people have been subject to higher instances of victimization
from crimes.’ This also ties in with contemporary Indian victimization surveys like
the CHRI Survey (2015) which record that high-income households are less affected
by crime compared to low-income households.

‘Rajiv Sethi and Glenn C Loury, “Crime and Punishment in Divided Societies” in Difference with-
out Domination: Pursuing Justice in Diverse Democracies, Eds. Danielle Allen and Rohini
Somanathan, University of Chicago Press, (forthcoming). The authors refer to earlier studies,
including by Harcourt (2006) and Alexander (2012), to explain the relationship between race and
crime in the US.
 5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National 211

As we note in our survey report, the Dalit and Adivasi communities in the State
experienced most number of property crimes - theft and house break-ins (with or
without use of force), Adivasi and OBCs faced almost twice the rate of victimiza-
tion from crimes against the body (murder, kidnapping, assault, intimidation, out-
rage of modesty).
Law and order offenses cover a wide range of disruptions to public peace. We
classify those into three broad categories: (i) riots and public disturbances; (ii)
exclusionary practices; and (iii) abuse and humiliation. Public disturbances cover
bandhs, hartals, agrarian protests, student unrest, labor unrest, incidents of commu-
nal or caste or language-targeted violence and gang violence. Exclusionary social
actions which amount to restriction or denial of access to public space and resources
include denial of access to: public water resources, public transport, places of wor-
ship, government buildings, gram sabhas or ward committees, schools or hospitals.
Abuse covers verbal abuse and physical assault, the practices of untouchability,
public humiliation, and social exclusion of people.
Under the law and order offenses, Dalits, Adivasis, and OBCs were subjected to
a much higher percentage of agrarian/farmer revolts, and faced inhuman practices
like denial of access to public spaces to worship, verbal and physical abuse, and
untouchability offenses, than other caste groups. The range of survey questions
asked was broad in scope and intended to capture the true experience of social
exclusion that these communities face. For instance, “Were you affected by the inci-
dent in any of the following ways? - deprivation of essential services such as rations,
water, medicines; forced not to go to work; forced to participate in the bandh/har-
tal/agitation/unrest/violence; suffered physical harm; suffered damage to property;
and other problems”. “Why do you think you were denied access to these [public
spaces]? - feud with influential persons in the community; caste, religion, gender,
mother tongue, native state, sexual orientation, skin color, disability, other rea-
sons?”. The official response of the police authorities to these incidents was also
recorded in the survey through questions like “Did the police take any action to
restore normalcy in the area?” “How long did it take before the situation to become
normal ?”.
The design of the survey questions examining these practices was also deter-
mined by their classification under criminal statutes. For instance, protests are cat-
egorized as public disturbance and controlled using the powers of the police under
the Criminal Procedure Code, denial of access to public spaces is a form of atrocity
committed against the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes proscribed under a
special law, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989, and the practice of untouchability under the Protection of Civil Rights
Act, 1955.
KCVS victimization results also point to some interesting facts — factors such as
urbanization are not prime movers driving the experience of crime by the popula-
tion. Respondents from rural and urban areas of the state faced different nature of
crimes - urban respondents experienced economic offenses like cheating and breach
of trust and offenses against the body at a higher rate, while rural Karnataka experi-
enced property crimes like vandalism and mischief, as understood under section

—
212 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

Table 5.4 Victimization by law and order offenses by caste

Law and order offenses —| General |Dalit Adivasi ‘OBC
Victim age OE SIRS ee ee eee oe
Nee Vida epee ger ORG ie ee
Total 100 100 100 100

Note: All figures are in percentages

425 of the Indian Penal Code. Economic class, determined based on the type of
dwelling people inhabit, also played no significant role in the levels of victimization
by crimes, particularly, on repeat victimization. Similar to location, class may have
some effect only on the category of offenses that people experienced — for property
offenses, while the upper and middle class complained of higher levels of theft and
criminal breach of trust, respondents of the lower class complained of more house
break-ins. Lower-class respondents experienced nearly two times more victimiza-
tion from law and order offenses in comparison with upper and middle classes. But
this could be the effect of overexposure of the lower class populations to collective
violence or the result of under-policing of their neighborhoods.
We also note that levels of victimization reflect in people’s perceptions of the
seriousness of an offense. In our survey for instance, as Tables 5.4, 5.5, and 5.6
show, Dalits and Adivasis are the most victimized by law and order offenses, and
more than 78% Adivasis and 73% Dalits also categorized these offenses as being
“very serious” or “somewhat serious” in nature.
2. Reporting Behavior
The willingness of people to report crime serves as a measure of confidence of
people in the police. As we mentioned earlier, crime victim surveys around the world
have found differences in reporting behavior based on the nature and gravity of
the offense, age and gender of victims, harm or injury to victims, and the extent to
which victims/their families feel that the matter is private and should not be reported.
We use the KCVS Victimization Rate as a measure of the experience of crime by
victims. To measure incidence of crime, we use two other standards — the rate at
which victims report crimes to the police (reporting rate) and the rate at which the
police register crimes reported by victims.
Our experience of understanding the reporting behavior of victims of crimes in
Karnataka is broadly similar to earlier crime victim surveys - that people do not
report crimes to the police. In our survey, only one in four instances of victimization
is reported (Table 5.7).
Interestingly, KCVS found that people’s perceptions of the seriousness of
offenses do not influence their crime reporting behavior. KCVS respondents viewed
80% of incidents involving property and economic offenses and body crimes as
“very serious” or “somewhat serious”. They viewed 41% of law and order incidents
like riots and group violence as “somewhat serious”.
Despite this perception, 64% of respondents who felt that property and economic
offenses were “very serious” did not report these offenses to the police. Of the
 5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National... 213

Table 5.5 Victimization by types of law and order offenses by caste

. Ue i General |Dalit | Adivasi |OBC
Riots and public disturbances

Bandhs
andHartals
Agrarian unrest 1 :
Student unres/Labor unrest
Communal/Caste violence
Gang violence _
Linguistic violence
Restricting or Denying access
Denying access to public water resource _
Denying access to public transport
Deny access to place of worship
Denying access to government buildings, gram sabha or ward
committee
Denying access to schools or hospitals
Abuse and humiliation
Verbal abuse
Physical assault Ean
3 Dn Oe 3
Untouchability 0 us shod Daas 10
Public humiliation ee eee
Social exclusion a. tlOws dis an [a
Total 100
Source: KCVS 2018-19, Azim Premji University
Note: All figures are in percentages

Table 5.6 Seriousness of law and order offenses by caste

Law and order offenses: How serious was the event for you?
General [Dalit
‘(Adivasi [OBC
Very serious ea ee 17
Somewhat serious 57 41
Not very serious Mividiae worpeb litres: ginwtSA ory ue BAe
Notseriousatal eer suede 0)0148(esrentiy. Eyl
Total POD sy ya) $20B >meogys 108113 ick: ehh OO
Source: KCVS 2018-19, Azim Premji University
Note: All figures are in percentages

Table 5.7 Percentage of instances of victimization reported to the police

Did you report the crime? Percentage

Yes | a
No 76
Total 100
Source: KCVS 2018-19, Azim Premji University
Note: Allfigures areinpercentages
214 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

respondents who viewed crimes against the body to be “very serious”, 57% did not
report these crimes to the police, while 93% of those who felt these crimes are
“somewhat serious”, chose not to report. Significantly, almost all respondents who
thought that crimes against the body were “not serious at all” did not report these
crimes to the police. So, only in case of crimes against the body, the seriousness of
the offense may serve as a filter to identify those incidents which are more likely to
find their way into the formal police reports of crime. Despite the public nature of
the offenses and the large number of affected victims, only 20% of the instances of
law and order offenses were reported to the police.
Other Indian CVS makes similar observations. For instance, the CHRI Survey
(2015) found that more than 53% of crimes in Delhi and 58% of crimes in Mumbai
were not reported. When asked to explain the reasons, people’s responses related to
their fear of being caught in complex and bureaucratic police and court processes,
feeling that there was little evidence of the crime, belief that the police would not or
could not do anything, and fear of retaliation by the offender. For urban respon-
dents, the police practice of making the complainant wait for an unreasonable time
and delays in registering the FIR were the main causes for dissatisfaction with the
police as SATARC (2017) reports.
What explains this behavior? We asked respondents several questions to under-
stand their rationale for reporting certain crimes only and conversely, failing to
report other crimes they experienced. Survey respondents were asked “How many
times has the incident occurred in the last one year?”; “What time did the most
recent incident occur?” “What was the location of the incident?” “Did you/your
family see the perpetrator?” “Do you know who the perpetrator is?” “Why do you
think the incident occurred?”’.
Respondents who were victimized by common crimes were asked if they reported
the crime, and if they did, to provide reasons for reporting. For each question,
respondents were required to provide their own reasons for reporting and the sur-
veyors did not prompt responses. Once responses were received, the surveyors then
matched the responses with the various categories of reasons marked out in the
questionnaire, which are detailed in the Annexure.
As Table 5.8 suggests, victims report crimes mainly to recover the stolen items
(in case of theft offenses) or to locate missing persons (for offenses against the
body). A general obligation to report crime for the welfare of the community comes
a distant fourth in the list of reasons that people provided for reporting crimes to the
police. This can be explained by looking at the factors that dissuade people from
approaching the authorities to report crimes. While reporting behavior varies greatly
depending on the category of crime, Table 5.9 highlights some of the main reasons
why victims fail to report even serious crimes.
Overall, looking at the nature of crimes, theft records the highest level of report-
ing in the property and economic offenses category. Other Indian surveys such as
those by CHRI and Common Cause (SPIR, 2018) also recorded similar results. The
CHRI Survey (2015) noted that while less than 50% of incidents of cell phone and
luggage theft were reported to the police in Mumbai and Delhi, theft of high-value
items like jewelry, computers or laptops, and cars was the most reported property
 5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National...
215

Table 5.8 Rationale for reporting the crime to the police

Why report the crime to police? _ ‘Percentage ~

To recover property/person ig: 36 sbi
To stop it from happening again ee ' '22 ——
Wanted offender to be caught and punish _ ye —
Crime should be reported | ; dee |y heodotle
It was a serious event wieovenn abies : smd :
For insurance reasons , aol ein 5
Other reasons coiesigattiiital ; ‘12 a —
Total ~ |100 =
Note: All figures are in percentages

Table 5.9 Rationale for not reporting the crime to the police

Reasons for not reporting crimes Percentage

Did not want to get stuck in police/court 20
system
Did not think the police would be able to do 17
anything
Lack of evidence 15
Uncomfortable to go to police station 15
Family matters need not be reported
Did not think police would entertain the case
This is better settled outside the police station
Fear of retaliation
Did not know where to report
Other reasons
Police is unfair
Did not know helpline number Oo
2A!
NM)
WIR]
NIN
FI

Total 100
Source: KCVS 2018-19, Azim Premji University
Note: All figures are in percentages

offense. SPIR (2018) found that victims are more likely to report property-related
crimes to the police. Consistent with international trends, this could be owing to the
requirement of producing FIRs to insurance companies to process claims on third
party insurance of the stolen items. However, we cannot impute a correlation
between reporting behavior and insurance policies, since we did not ask survey
respondents whether they availed insurance on the stolen property.
We also evaluated the probabilities of victims reporting crimes to the police
based on their gender, caste, religion, income groups, and geographic location. This
produced certain important results. Male respondents were 23% more likely to
report than females. Among income groups, the middle class shows a 12% higher
216 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

probability of reporting to the police while the upper income group has a 10% lower
probability of formal reporting. Urban residents are 16% less likely to report crime
incidents than the rural population.
Our analysis on caste and religious lines shows a disturbing result. Of the caste
groups, Adivasis showed 34% lower chance of reporting and religious minorities,
particularly, Muslims had a 29% lower chance of reporting incidents of crime to the
police. Further research is required to unravel the reasons for this variance in report-
ing among these socioeconomic groups.
We also examined reporting trends based on respondents’ formal education and
levels of awareness about policing. Our analysis found that with any level of formal
education and basic awareness, the likelihood of reporting to the police increases
substantially. People who knew the location of the nearest police station in their
locality showed a nearly 40% higher chance of reporting crimes than those who
did not.
The victims were asked the method they used to report incidents — whether they
called the 100 helpline or another police helpline, went to the police station or
approached a police officer to report, and also the police response to their report.
This is important to examine since crime reporting trends are also strongly influ-
enced by policing behavior. This forms another measure of crime incidence, namely,
recording of crimes by the police. KCVS results on this paint an equally dismal
picture. Of the reported incidents of property and economic offenses, KCVS data
show that complaints were registered by the police in only 50% of the incidents
reported and FIRs lodged in only 22% of the reported cases. Similarly, for those
incidents of crimes against the body reported to the police, complaints were regis-
tered by the police for less than 50% and FIRs lodged for only 20% of the reported
incidents of crime. Of the law and order offenses reported to the police, complaints
were registered in 34% and FIRs lodged in only 10% of reported cases.
As we note above, only around 13% of the respondents who approached the
police in our study could register their complaint with the police. While we cannot
establish any systematic class bias by the police in registering complaints, we note
a tendency among the police which favored upper class and middle class complain-
ants in registering FIRs. Lower class complainants were encouraged to settle the
matter and not file official complaints with the police. Studies like SPIR (2018) have
pointed to procedural lapses committed by the police when people approached them
to register their case. In rural areas, FIRs were read out in 57% of the cases when
compared to urban areas, where 52% of the complaints were written and recorded.
Male complainants were more likely to receive written complaints than females.
Our survey exposed certain peculiarities in police response to crimes — for exam-
ple, based on the types of complaints that was brought before them, police behavior
varied. The police readily registered complaints of property offenses but not offenses
against the body and law and order offenses. As we describe earlier, FIRs were filed
at about 20% for offenses against property and for crimes against the body, com-
plaints were registered by the police for less than 50% of the reported incidents and
FIRs lodged for only 20% of these incidents. For law and order offenses, these fig-
ures are 50% lower. Instead of recording crimes reported by victims, the police
 5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National 217

encouraged parties not to file an FIR and instead settle the matter informally. This is
despite a legal mandate on the police to file an FIR particularly in cognizable
offenses, and if the police refuse, they can be penalized. As the CHRI Survey shows,
this points to a huge institutional failure, since a refusal to register an FIR imposes
a formidable barrier in the initial stages of the criminal justice process itself, deny-
ing access to justice to victims of crime.
It is logical to assume that these factors should negatively influence people’s
satisfaction with police action to incidents of crime. Our survey results however
show a counterintuitive response by people to the police. In about 59% of the cases,
victims were satisfied with the response from the police to their complaint. This
satisfaction varied based on the type of crime reported: eight out of ten victims of
law and order offenses, seven out of ten victims of crimes against the body, and four
out of ten victims of property offenses expressed satisfaction with the police action.
As discussed in the earlier chapter, the CHRI Survey (2015) also found similar
results — 40% of the surveyed group in Delhi and nearly 45% in Mumbai viewed the
police in positive light and this result was consistent across income groups in
these cities.
We asked respondents to provide reasons for their satisfaction with police
response. These related to the police listening to their complaint, registering the
complaint accurately or quickly, explaining the action that they would take on the
complaint, and finally solving the problem. Our findings suggest that considerate
and humane treatment of people by the police generates a better perception of the
police in the eyes of the public than solving the crime or resolving their complaint.
In fact, as SPIR (2018) points that this may also reflect favorably on the inclination
of people to continue to approach the police for their problems in the future too
(Fig. 5.4).
Our survey findings suggest that complainants’ satisfaction level related to their
social and demographic background was not necessarily influenced by the prompt-
ness of police action: in our survey, women reported greater satisfaction based on
their interactions with the police than men; across religions — Muslims were most
dissatisfied with the police (more than 60%) than Hindus and Christians. While
these results are aligned to the broader exercise of social power, we observed

Fig. 5.4 Satisfaction with

police action Satisfied with police
action

# Yes « No

Source: KCVS 2018-19, Azim Premji University

218 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

Table 5.10 Reason for satisfaction with the police

with the police

Reasons for satisfaction : Percentage on

d quickly
the complaint
They registere | 27 : stl’
They explained the action that they will take | 21 r
They registered the complaint accurately |
They solved the problem read, e) ae aie B.
They listened to the complaint | 13
ee aaie
Total 100
Source: KCVS 2018-19, Azim Premji University
Note: All figures are in percentages

different results across the other variables of interest — class, caste, and geographic
location. A high 88% of Adivasis and OBCs and 66% Dalits reported being satisfied
with the police. Similarly, on class grounds, about 73% of lower-class victims
expressed satisfaction. Rural respondents were satisfied with the police action at
roughly double the rates that urban respondents reported (Table 5.10).
Given our observations made earlier on the high rates of crime victimization that
these groups experience, low rates of crime reporting and even lower rates of record-
ing of crimes by the police, these results are very puzzling. A detailed examination
of these factors will be required to unravel the underlying reasons that determine
people’s responses to crime and policing behavior.
3. Perceptions of Safety
Criminological research on the fear of crime has examined whether people’s
actual risk of victimization and crime rates in their neighborhood are accurate pre-
dictors of their level of fear (Lewis & Salem, 1986; Ferraro, 1995; Taylor, 2002;
Hinkle, 2015). The topic remains highly contested because many studies have
reported little relation between these. One reason that was attributed to this finding
was that “fear of crime is not a concrete concept that has been consistently mea-
sured with similar survey items across studies” (Yang & Hinkle, 2012) since it is a
“visceral, emotional reaction to crime and has not often been measured in such
terms” (Farrall & Maruna, 2004). Literature on factors related to the fear of crime
can be divided into three main types: (i) environmental cues; (ii) demographic fac-
tors; and (iii) neighborhood structure (Ogneva-Himmelberger et al., 2019). In our
survey, we questioned people about perceived safety using all three categories with
a mix of closed- and open-ended questions like “What time would you start worry-
ing about safety of an adult [male/female] member of your household who is out
alone at night?” “Do you feel safe leaving your home locked for many days?” “Do
you feel safe traveling using public transport alone during the day/night?” “How
much of a problem do you think crime is in your area?”. On this theme, we found
that public perceptions of fear, safety, and security depend on their spatial and tem-
poral conditions such as their neighborhood, urban/rural location, and the time of
the day/night they commute in their locality or use public transport to travel outside
it (Table 5.11).
 5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National...
219

Table 5.11 Traveling on public transport at night

What time would you stop feeling safe while traveling on public transport?
After 7 p.m. 13
After 8 p.m. 46
After 10 p.m. 77
After 11 p.m. | 93
iliac aaa maeninan ce a acreamea 37
Source: KCVS 2018-19, Azim Premji University
Note: All figures are in percentages

Concern about male/female adult members

Female amily ner be oO

i
Male family member i
i
0 20 40 60 80 100

BAfter7pm WAfter8pm WaAfter10pm © After 11pm After midnight

Note: All figures are in percentages

Source: KCVS 2018-19, Azim Premji University

Fig. 5.5 Concern about adult family members

An astounding 96% of survey respondents found their neighborhood to be safe,

____ albeit to varying degrees. Not much variation was observed on this among respon-
dents in urban and rural centers, and across religious denominations. Interestingly,
| more women found their neighborhoods to be safe, in comparison with the men.
Around 95% of women felt safe walking in the neighborhood during the day. In a
marked difference from urban crime victimization surveys like the CHRI Survey,
we found that more people worry about the male members of the family and a much
higher number worry about the female members of the family being out of the house
alone after 8 p.m. (Fig. 5.5). People’s responses could therefore vary based on the
demography of the surveyed population, for instance, as Hinkle (2015) points out,
the participant’s gender could be important — there may be differences across male
and female respondents “in their willingness to admit feeling afraid of a crime dur-
ing a survey or interview” (p. 148) (Fig. 5.6).
Across caste groups, despite experiencing similar victimization from crime as
the Dalits, a higher number of Adivasis perceive that crime is a big problem in their
neighborhood.
These feelings of safety and security determined people’s usage of public trans-
port (Fig. 5.7). Almost all respondents (99%) felt safe using the state road transport
buses (KSRTC), followed by trains (83%). Private buses, autos, and taxis were con-
sidered safe by 80%, 73%, and 43% of the respondents, respectively (Fig. 5.8).
 220 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

How safe is your neighbourhood

100

80
Very Safe
60 ~ Somewhat Safe
40 ® Somewhat unsafe
B® Very Unsafe

: 0 re er ee

Note: All figures are in percentages

Source: KCVS 2018-19, Azim Premji University

Fig. 5.6 Perception of neighborhood safety

Fig. 5.7 Traveling on

: 100
public transport at night by
» 9 80
gender => ow
i) - 60
e 8 40
30
Oa 20 = Male
0 === Female

AFDie
a? oFpu8 wyeeae
et we os we €
S

Ve eetr

Note: All figures are in percentages

Source: KCVS 2018-19, Azim Premji University

It is safe to travel by:

100 wtih chentin gti "a a ee ee eee —_——s é
90
70
60 treated
. ———- | . —~- -- ; :
°oevs eee | ithaiik deal nti aon ee eee ee ee ee |

30 an ae es nat anaartataieate a i cccncieaeeamainill monpaseprenteta

KSRTC Train Private Bus Auto Taxi

Note: All figures are in percentages

Source: KCVS 2018-19, Azim Premji University

Fig. 5.8 Safe to travel by public transport

People worry more about being victims of crime than would actually exper
ience
it. People were mostly worried about experiencing property offenses
(~65%) —
mainly, theft and robbery, followed by offenses against the body (30%)
like physical
assault, murder, and suicide. This corresponds to the official crime figur
es released
 5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National 221

by the National Crime Records Bureau. SATARC also reported similar result and
identified theft as being the most prevalent crime across the four Indian cities sur-
veyed: Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, and Chennai. In our survey, only 5% worried
about law and order offenses such as gang violence and caste violence: and crimes
by government servants in their area. Most people felt comfortable leaving their
home locked for a few days while they were outside their neighborhood or city.
These results were observed in each of the six police ranges we studied — despite the
higher prevalence of theft offenses that respondents reported to us, more than seven
out of every ten respondents in every range found that their neighborhood was safe
enough to leave their house locked for a few days.
People’s responses to their notion of “seriousness” of the offense are illuminat-
ing. Our survey found that more than 80% of incidents involving property and eco-
nomic offenses and offenses against the body were classified by people as “very
serious” or “somewhat serious”. This ties in with the actual victimization rates of
people by these crimes. Calculated on the basis of the incidents of crime, we find
that property offenses were the most prevalent, followed by law and order offenses.
These together account for close to 80% of all incidents that were reported to us.
These observations point to an interesting fact: contrary to the expected results,
we note that safety perception and fear of crime among people are different con-
structs. As Hinkle (2015) observes, this can be explained by looking at the types of
items used to measure fear, particularly obvious from the questions used in most
large-crime victimization surveys such as the NCVS in the US. Questions like “How
safe do you feel waking alone at night in your neighborhood?” (as we ask in our
survey) or “How likely do you think that you will be a victim of (crime type) in the
next 6 months ?”, etc. do not draw a clear connection to being emotionally afraid of
being a victim of crime. He points to studies in the United Kingdom (Farrall et al.,
2008) showing that measures of perceived risk, fear or worry about crime may over-
state the level of fear in society as people may be more likely to report feeling
unsafe or perceiving personal victimization risk than they are to report feeling
“emotionally afraid” of crime (p. 148).
From our survey, we observe that in Karnataka, people perceived that they are
safe despite their observation that crime is a problem in their neighborhoods.
Victimization from individual crimes or seriousness of the offenses, did not match
their idea of feeling safe. External indicators of safety, such as the presence of police
patrols and people’s awareness of the nearest police station and its facilities, did not
seem to influence their perception of safety.

4 Learning and Way Forward

KCVS has been designed as a pilot for India’s first national crime victimization
survey (the “All India Citizens Survey of Police Services”) being conducted by the
Bureau of Police Research and Development and National Council of Applied
Economic Research. The entire process - from survey design, execution to data
collection and analysis, offered useful training and practical field experience to the
222 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

academics and students involved. Such a detailed study on the social and empirical
basis of crime had not been conducted in India so far. This serves as an important
instrument to carry out systemic and substantive legal reform and police reform.
Findings from KCVS can be used to inform the process adopted for the national
survey and interpret the results emerging from this to understand the national trends
on crime victimization better. Our survey can serve as a consistent measure of a
selected range of crimes experienced by households and of the likelihood of them
being victims of crime. This is because, unlike official crime statistics, the informa-
tion self-reported by victims in CVS covers their “[individual] experiences before,
during, and after the offense has occurred” (Chockalingam, 2003).
KCVS provides an empirical basis for understanding why victims of crime
engage or disengage with the criminal justice system and how this affects society. It
can serve as an important tool for policy makers and civil society to build awareness
of who the victims are, the spread of crime, circumstances in which victimization
takes place, and measures that can be taken to curb crime. It also serves as a fair
reflection of the capability of and people’s confidence and trust in the police.
Some results that emerge from our survey go against the observations made in
the other crime victimization surveys conducted so far in India. This is particularly
noticeable in the variance we observe in the experiences of victimization by people
based on their gender, caste, and geography which we described in the earlier sec-
tion of this chapter. Further research needs to be done to examine the relationship
between these variables and victimization in various regions across the country.
Private surveys such as ours are limited in their coverage owing to budgetary
constraints. State-run surveys like periodic crime victim surveys conducted interna-
tionally, have the advantage of not being limited by similar resources and other
constraints. They operate at scale and establish adequate safeguards to ensure the
safety and security of persons involved. This includes setting up central units staffed
by subject experts who can monitor the progress of the survey and evaluate results
in time. KCVS covered the Police Ranges of Karnataka, but data at the district/
police station level collated by the NCRB “Crime in India” reports are essential for
administrative planning and priorities assessment.
Further, as we experienced, surveyors may face local resistance to the process in
a diverse and politically volatile country like India, issues which can be managed
better in a state supported public opinion survey. The KCVS questionnaire was
lengthy with several sections requiring people to provide diverse information, some
questions could appear complicated and survey respondents may have experienced
trouble in responding to them, Higher budgets and other resources could improve
questionnaire design and be used to train surveyors for better execution of the sur-
vey. In order to obtain a true picture of victimization from crimes, crime categories
should be expanded. Crimes against women and children are of a highly sensitive
nature, and separate and detailed ethical protocols need to be put in place.
More generally, crime victimization surveys like the KCVS are not equipped to
provide insights into lower volume-higher harm violence faced by society such as
homicides, use of firearms, and crimes involving knives or sharp instruments. The
time lag between occurrence of crime and collection of data about the crime does
 > The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National.. 223

not make these surveys a reliable measure of emerging trends in crime in a region.
They use correlation not causation, and so, cannot be effective in understanding the
impact of specific interventions or targeted measures for reform.
Official statistics of crime provided by the NCRB cover a broader range of
crimes since they includes seriously violent crimes like murder, homicide, domestic
violence, and sexual assault. Crime rates are also calculated differently. The NCRB
report breaks down self-identified instances of crime using specific characteristics
like the age of the victim (as crimes against children, juveniles, adults, and senior
citizens) and specifically classifies the data recorded in metropolitan or nonmetro-
politan areas (defined as cities with a population of more than 20,00,000). These
features are absent in a survey like ours.
Despite certain practical problems with data gathering and survey management,
victim surveys are immensely valuable. They are a necessary supplement to official
crime Statistics since they look beyond the institutions, processes, and professionals
and cover problems that people usually ignore or deal with informally. They provide
the “big picture” on crime. Quantifying victimization across the general population
of a state, mapping patterns and attitudes toward the system, examining the behavior
of state actors, assessing their capability, and identifying obstacles to providing
expected policing services to the community are the other advantages of a survey
like this.*
They are a strong tool to provide useful inputs for designing and implementation
of reforms. “Surveys can be used within a variety of research design frameworks
and alongside other forms of data collection as part of a triangulated research
design, in which multiple methods are used to obtain ‘a more detailed and balanced
picture of the situation’” (Altrichter et al., 2008, p.147). Regularly organized crime
victimization surveys conducted in the same geographies and representative of a
large national sample are a good indicator of longer term trends in crime, particu-
larly for the common types of crimes experienced by the general population and
even specific population groups. These surveys may not be definite reports of the
incidence of crime per se but reveal the underlying concealed operation of social
and economic power and violence in society, and changes in people’s behavior over
time and so, serve as powerful tools for analysis. They yield data that can be acted
upon in a visible and tangible way and serve to better direct and strengthen police
response and behavior. Such good quality data are critical for making improvements
and evaluating effectiveness of the justice system.

*Explained in the context of legal needs surveys in OECD/Open Society (2019), “Legal Needs
Surveys and Access to Justice” OECD Publishing: Paris https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/
g2g9a36c-en.pdf?expires=16 16733247 &id=id&accname=guest&checksum=85D057F1C6662
2C672F8D8BD103360F8 last accessed March 26, 2021.
224 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

Survey Questionnaire (English and Kannada)

KARNATAKA CRIME QUESTIONNAIRE March/ 2017/ SRC

VICTIMISATION SURVEY B75?

Police Division
Boder Aen
District
ad
City/Block ( Taluk):
ANG/ eee (Gauwe)
Police Station (Thana)
Bode ood
Type of locality:
Bva IB

Town / City.
Ano /Bt3,09
Metropolitan city
hHesnid
Locality (Ward/Village):
Br @amr/ BY )
Polling Station No
HIreJ, Boas,
Name of respondent
wd= Newmsad sid
Address
Aves

Sex or Male 1 Female 2

now Bey

Speer re eee
Name of Interviewer (INT):
sodgred ead
Name of Supervisor (SUP):
Anse’ 3,A0* sad)

FIELD CONTROL INFORMATION

D
nanan ee aneeeeeen ey eneEseneeeeT ey ene EENSeLEHEERSS SEEPS REE HESSHES ECEEEE ESSEES:
eee neennneneneny
i
teers Sonos
ae Sottrrinn Itt trerro
toot Dots
STARTTIME
teeters eeereee teneeneeennes teneenewrens:
| :
oonconcondpronecen

FIRST VISIT INTV DATE END TIME

START TIME wi
oe
acca sal aa dada po a Bee |
SUPV.CODE || 11] [INV.CODE |_|||| | CHECKEDCODE | || 11
ACCOMPANIED CALL |Y1N2 |BY:CODE |_| ||| |Gli Ss ili
[srOrcHECK
LBACK CHECK.
[v1 N= [py.cope |_| |||
oi ¥s No | Byvicope | ||
[son [|
|.) eeon
[SCRUTINY:FIELD __[¥1N 2 |pycope | | {| | | [sion |
SCRUTINY :
1
TET
ANALYSIS YES evcvcccccced NOs severe cell

KCVS Questionnaire.Doc 1
5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National... 225

STATEMENT OF INFORMED CONSENT

Awad VPranrGdeow Hav, Ads orf SeVsas,
My name is and I have come on behalf of Azim Premji University, Bangalore
and Sigma Research, Bangalore. We are conducting a state survey on people’s experience with crime. We will be
interviewing hundreds of people across the Karnataka. We are doing a research on prevalence of crime, experience of the
victim and interaction with police. Every person over the age of 18 has an equal chance of being included in this study. You
have been selected by chance. There is no risk in participating in this survey. If you are uncomfortable about any question,
you need not answer.

But if you answer our questions, you will help us in understanding the state of crime in Karnataka. This survey is an
independent study and is not linked to any political party or government agency. Whatever information you provide will
be kept strictly confidential. The findings of this survey will be used for research and writing articles in newspaper, books
and journals. Participation in this survey is voluntary.

We hope that you will take part in this survey since your participation is important. It usually takes 30 to 35 minutes to
complete this interview. Please spare some time for the interview and help me in successfully completing the survey.

Maj Saicd----------- Mm soriveds weeo deod Igdoavab dw ani, Seaese edd ada wohAes. mq edoogsd
BowogGsg sad vabyad wr} 086,00 scdeg aAnamdIged. meq smarusmed.os Aomomd sada, Sodsrs aAnddged.
emmdd aby od0? wdaindad vabyadend? ae Aodend das Anwss vadyad wr] Aad Aodeeds aAnmSsded. 18
Bar Sabah, edd J3aley d,drie & wG,cbAdo sadlaws Sard vdeosIdd. Jad,A) 8A,F GA GOAVBAG. G DabegabO
wahaiedd dab and varabde au. ange 5a, Nav BAMA req wvsbadesAv,
Bad, ZANVrt New wuss NeBad ade saorusso esoadd 43 NS SeAd aoc Ivabw deg Sadr Jog NeBdoserdsd. &
Meabegaw BSos, oG,absaad aa anade oasdeah 3g oGaa Ward asAN HonohsmsABy. veg wAAads ange
AnbSabay deta adeerdsd. & Addegabd soadd aed somddeod SeanrArva, Aad, Soreeddnent Da
BSSSSriw, Sasi De sdreonivo veasrivay odadw ovsvadsd. & Scoegavd eahairarivee vesow wsaabdv. dew

S&H BdbeZaboO eg) wahaivrvayad awa,. eda, adarioa deg Scvegabd saw Sedow sswsed. Sodseds, 30-35 Vcdainiv
0d} vesarbad. dabdwy Jv, sxervdeed AVAdoom & Dabegabay absd,airaA avAdw Ida dedsesord doebsed.

May I begin the interview now? &r Sodsrs edodAaende?

Respondent agrees to be interviewed 1

HosUesg,
cuss Decade wd ogd.
Respondent does not agree to be interviewed 2
BoSBedss,cvds Newadw wd AOL

KCVS Questionnaire.Doc 2
226 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 3,30d0 abs

What is your Religion? Hindu &oc)

aad, Gabe aiverpeh Muslim avo

Buddhist/Neo Buddhist e?4/Aa2q

Jain 3583

No religion aes Gara av

Others (Record response)
ee ee ae
23d(wusd Oen0d)
What are the languages spoken at home?
MULTIPLE RESPONSE
Aad, HAabo aid aired enarivah,
Telugu Serb
ArBaowd3e6? 2.00d,03 Sed erainivay,
Malayalam awdimvo
wevoway

English aoa
Others (Record the response):
98
asd(euss Gandd)
What is your caste category
AD, m3 and Sari BO obs? Scheduled Caste 3O8a e503

Schedule Tribe 363a dona

OBC 23d homben end

Self-employed in agriculture
What is your primary occupation: Ba Rado ovcie,eA
Aa, arow ovda,en aireqyay? Self-employed in business/trade
Dabo suciecA se,a0d
Regular salaried employee
ANads Toovs oucie,eA
Casual wage labourer
DMo0BI)rs Deed Socbrs
Not working now, but is seeking and/or
available for work

Not able to work due to disability/old age

sus pigs Negmee Wiper Oe ee

Attends domestic duties for the household... 8

Hwwowdsye hAsodivay anwdsges
Rent recipient, pensioner, remittance
recipient, etc

| What is your approximate Annual Household __

KCVS aeanmael 3
/ 5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National... hr

Income? da 50,0008, sab ——————

voomeA Jab, dSab cadres sopabdend?
Between 50,000 and 1,00,000 .............. wn
da 50,000 D® 1,00,0000 Awa
Between 1,00,000 and 3,00,000................000. 3
de 1,00,000 DA 3,00,000 Saws
Between 3,00,000 and 10,00,000..............04.- 4
da 3,00,000 DS 10,00,000 saad
Na TI IN onsen rcttnacospetnnntisasanaanercae 5
G@10,00,000 Sa, ade,4)

Total number of individuals in the household:

Hewowsows wey Fav Soas,

1. Males Nowa
2. Females Soriaa:
3. Others aaa :
Please tell me how many individuals in your 1.0to10years 0-10daF ore
household are in the following age groups
Aad, Hevovd JIH,GO aay sate & Joba
roodnt Secbaad?
4. 31to 45years 931-45 dar
5.46to60years 46to60 dar
6. >60 years: 60 SaF Sa, dey.
ty
Please tell me the number of earning members 1. Males Nowa
of the family who are:
2. Females Bonwod:
3. Others aaa :
Please tell me the number of individuals of 6+
years in the household who have
Vad, Devowgd III,0O awoOAos IOI, 23,0
whch 6 darda, dey. Dabs Jaa,0 Toa,
3. Primary Pass/Middle Fail
DayBebs aciabo
wsenr /ANVG, soo Saoad
4. Middle Pass/Matriculation Fail
and,cbs Bad Dexd / avfarfav’ &
Saw
5. Completed Matriculation
arFartav’ 4 avAdagd.
6. Completed Class XII or PUC
aN BINS/doind AvALoQV.
7.Completed
Bachelors/Undergraduate
wm
Woo BBD) avAdagd
8. Completed Post-Graduate (MA,
M.Sc., M.Com., B. Ed., M. Ed., LLB,
PGDM) %y,38eesd BBD avAdogd.
(800, 20.02%., d0 .B20, O aa, do
oF., AO, 38800)
228 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

Oa) daeridod & 3cdeddog6? 2 A VORTE BOE ecttenckanenrsodhannticinanpsonrtatarentosoes

0 BTU TINE a saccceeeccanene
taeerie nenciaren 3
6 = 'B SORTER cronsarccssscranrendceetsonptcateansetentoorter 4
$3 10 VOM Be eccsacsvensacssttcccenesorstachernectaners 5
10 = 255 VBE TOMI aeoctccrseescntonce
anoreeeghcren cam 6
More than 15 years 15 DaFd,08 Bra) ..........00-»
Is your house Rented em&rt abSobe
amd, dd AAO R RRA EAE RO EERE ATER NESE EEEERESHEREREEOH ESET EE

Oe R RRR RENAE ERR ee EERE REE AEEREREEEEE ENTREES EERE EER ERE OREO RH

How many times have you shifted residence in Haven't moved in the last 5 years .......s0e
the past 5 years? BVO 5 dard ads odOdy
BY 5 BaraO Ned oa) 2708 SI WHOLHCS? Moved once wah, WBOLBGETS ....-.rnerneeneeneesnennes 2
Moved two times 20 2706 HGOAGES.......... 3
Moved three times et 276 wGOADD......4
Moved four times Taen,2708 GOATS ......... 5
Moved five times Hab 278 WBOAGES ...........- 6
More than five times och eeSAos Sed, Bu
rrrrrerririrriirti ti

Type of Dwelling
ads AB net ree Bat oicane =aga qensind

Flat/Apartment in a gated community with

Sec FPP R ARERR OPES RETESET TEESE REE EEEE SEER OR EORETEREEEEEEER EEDA OE

Neticf Savve abO saex*/oaees*r choes*, Bayoe

ad
Flat/Apartment in a non-gated community...3
Dats /omeese hott sad neviok Sawa ov
BATH yBCCTR ON nisin seecstapncinereereinteeeee 4
WBHAew 6p ads
Slum/Jhugi/Jhopri. Pukka (both wall and a
made of pukka material) ........s:ssssssecssenesenenne
Saved /daeds. dee, Da( reed Da oak
40 BaxhdoB anrAcy)
Pukka-Kutcha (Either wall or roof is made of
pukka material and other of kutcha material)6
BBa,-8ay( Need edar wae daa, Bxdod
BeBe) adapevodieh dey Sevod areBey)
Kutcha/Mud houses (both wall and roof are
made of kutcha material) ........000.ssceseseeneees 7
Beg, /AAS DA( eed a ended Ses
Bxdoo arAd))
Hut (both wall and roof made of grass, leaves,
Un-burnt brick or bamb00). .........essseeseeeeneene 8
Baw ( Need HDB wae Hev,ad, Fd

Do you have
the following
abr train oBGe0?
READOUT
OR SHOW CARD 1.8 #0
OGare
mem Baebs
 5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National... 229
ee

Total land and buildings including orchard and A. Agricultural Land 8)4 gee:
plantation owned by your household as of the
date of the survey (Ask in local units, but B. Other Land aso elecb:
record in standard acres): C. No of Commercial buildings:
Sac De Scaaaeg\rivae BeOd & Deg Sack, SyGriv Aoal,
SA0 OAdomd Jad, Hevow Beha wey, D. No of Residential buildings:
ech HA Sy ariw oe 30% (@Veab andanv BBS By ariv Soal,
BSod SeY aa osdrivO odadeg) E. Total area wen Ideere:
F. Total area wen, Idec:

Do you or members of your household have ei

ee ee
the following A. Ceiling fan &eOorf aa,
ean egar dab, dAabdoaio & ainaaiay

na
B. Air conditioner 20°
BoodQed?
BoBeado®
READOUT L880
C. LPG stove ac¥ 3 8 ue

ea
D. Mobile phone dazd,*

E. T.V 80
werk
TFETi a
F. Refrigerator 3
G. Personal computer/laptop meee

H.
Scooter/Motorcycle/Moped
Ma,wor/daetnd 3.30%
L. Car/Jeep/Van
Ba /Beay/aaA~
J. Bicycle 3,80" thee ot
L. Gold jewellery 34,3 wad
bal ged
M. Tractor t39,8,0°
i
N. Motorized pumping set for
irrigation KeoasOr aeetsao*
sow sex
Please specify the number of livestock you own A. Goat/sheep/pig:
RY BoWHS mraarwanv Toss, 302 ahed/@8/808
B. Cow/Oxen/Buffalo:

C
anyother
Bab/aw/aad,
C. Any other:

Do you and your family usually deposit your

IEEE wea vie hel oi]
ABankseyes| fa
savings in
manda Nad, Hewow wuPsrvabsaday
oO
dead Armbsd? B. Post Office woes d23e8
230 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

Skip

Do you know where your nearest police

station or chowki is?
Nd, B800 Sodexk oa /wd a0d reso?
How safe you think your neighbourhood is? Very safe wav aboge
Nad, SdHed oa) WIGS VAATED? Somewhat safe xbairaoah adgs
Somewhat unsafe ayenaA wxddgs
Very unsafe nev wAbogs
Don't know/Can't say Redu/eevuerico
How often do police patrol this area?
BH 3Besso aa w8 Doden* rit) Adoinsd?
Weekly a0, WED ,.....-secsessecnesnecnncnssneenenerarenens 3
Fortnightly BOA ,c) OBEA,
DD,....-.ccereecnervenees 4
Monthly 3orieriee,.
Yearly daréa,ch,
Don’t know / Can't say Madu/eevueriad

During the last one year, has anything been

stolen or attempted to be stolen from your
possession or from the possession of any
member of your family? (house/ vehicles/
phones/household appliances/ goods/
jewellery) 8¥6 womb SarBO Aad, Odds epae
Aad, HAobad ange Izy svaoldabe/
BOalnd Bobs madbSe(3/mMen/Saev’/aos
Bab/ AdoNw/wdd)
During the last one year, has anyone damaged
or tried to cause damage to your property
(house/ vehicles/phones/household
appliances/ goods/jewellery)? 8v7G wom
Bardo Nad, sar aowdde Hed aArwAdos
UBar Hon) anws
Babs medbse(hs/mss/Goenk/ ds
Bx/AddNw/was)
During the last one year, have you or your
family members lost money due to fraud in a
chit fund, property deal or any other
investment scheme?
BVG word darGO dea oda Aad, dtaddm
wer sof, od Roms ops Beds
Gaeasdbos ar &evmeeoBve?
Has any member of the family been victim of
debit card, online or ATM frauds and has lost
money? Vad, Hao airovdda sdes’ socdr,
BF UyF/ aloo dane wdanA an
BY¥cbanodoe?
During the last one year, have you or anyone
in your family faced any physical assault or
threat of physical assault in any way including
through grabbing, slapping, shoving,
punching or by guns, knives and other
dangerous objects?
8G word dar aO dea oder dad, advobad
dinoddarnd avmmdayad, sav gods,
BvAdAa Naw avomd wgan workaw,
wre oBar varahsd Sayidod F,bs aes
OGaP G,b8 Job ASS wvrmAddos?
Du > one year has any person
paowrhenll READ OUT OR SHOW CARD
80 word Bard Nad 800 8 aca,

KCVS Questionnaire.
Doc 9
 5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National... 23]

| wvabde6? a 2. on
Stla, tied, BAO Bak aTy,O SeOdos —
|SINGLE CODE euiett anak

|
is iccsengaunirnsions 3
2-deuo®
Ndrine saatodienddsonnnan 4
4 Deo
Other (Please Specify): .98
aso( Ora aeBNeeV6)
FEAR ANDSAFETY gob
da a8

taeda — you start worrying about After 7 pm Bo 7 Notd BOBD..........csoecsesseeeneens

: of an adult male member
of your
household who is out alone at night? After 8 pm oad, 8 FROG OTE on nccsssscsncnnnesnnsasee 2

Neb, adSab Dabal, Nodad oaSabd addons After 10 pm 023, 10 Notd SOBD.............00ec0e-: 3
Ba0rl Sacoan ana Savabao Javrt wad dged | After 11 pr Fad, 11 Mots BOBO ........-reeesseesnnees 4
art dos eroacd? After midnight 0G,083, BOBD............-ssseee 5
Would not worry 8oBQdw.........sesscccecrerseeneennes 6
Don't know / Can't say Radu/sevoanc......
What time would you start worrying about After 7 pm So2 7 Motd SoBO.........ccsceeeseseeeens
safety of an adult female member of your
household who is out alone at night? After 8 pm a3, 8 Notd SOBT .......:.ceccesnerneenees 2
After 10 pm 023, 10 Notd BOBT..........ecseeseenees 3
deb, dab Soba, Soriad ov3,cd0 adadhos After 11 pm 093, 11 Noted SOT .......cecsesseenesnees 4
Badr Kaen aind Aadabae dabrt wad dee After midnight DG,093, SBT... 5
arf dos srbgct? Would not worry BoBAD........essessesveeseeneesener 6
Don't know / Can't say Re3u/sevuariaogg
Do you feel safe leaving your home locked for | Yes Bd ........ccccssecssssesssecesvssssscscecsvaccesssnsececaes
many days?
Daly Bs abatrt Hertwad door aoerid addgs | NO PQenvenvnrnnrrnnrrnnennnrnnansnnnsennin
Pe MOE / CANE SAY. cisisisceseseccsessssersscancosssess

Do you feel safe travelling using public Don't

transport alone during the day? Yes know

Brivo wouainA and madras aOrtabd nade

A. KSRTC Bus
Barkuot’ 34 wart

BPiatebuanamer
[a |a|oo

At what time inthe evening will you stop TE EARS

feeling safe while traveling using public After
8pm 098,
8Hot SOB vescsnsnnnneneven 2
Bos aired Aavabao Sadi mdra0s 10 pm a3, 10 Notd SOBD.........ecreeeseeveee 3
After
mOrtabd satire arecbaent dgs 11 pm Odd, 11 NOt SOBD
After .........eeerseeseseees 4
Ome? | ARE GTI UGYOND MOTO se resenerscorrsssveee

sennweee

After
7 pm o2 7 Noted BOBD........ccccsvecneseeneee
After 8 pm 093, 8 Ot! FOBT ......ccccsenscssennee
After 10 pm 028, 10 Not HOBD........-.0e eB
After 11 pm 093,11 NOt AOBD ........0srerseevrd
232 S. Krishnaswamy and V., Aithala

Coding Category

Babar arden oas After midnight BG,0Vd, SOBO........coverveennee

vAaabaydo ? Would not worry 30S QD0........-.-essseeserereerenanes 6
Don’t know/Can't say Ne3u/seevverien........
Do you feel safe walking around in yOUr =— | YeS BD wns esessesesnenenssnesvarnnsennsnnnnnnsnsnunonnnsensnnnnen
neighbourhood during the day?
BNO Nad, AdaedabO Loader wogs
Diom'y ROW CaS BOY ncetersicenestecetsscicrsmnaiectors
adabscdabe? nadsu/sevueia
Do you feel safe walking around in your
neighbourhood in the evening?
Bod Aad, IdaedodO Laoadsen abdgs
adabacabe?
At what time in the evening would you stop After 7 pm S02 7 NOtd BOBO........cecerseeeeensenenes
feeling safe walking around the After 8 pm ad, 8 Mot3 BOG «0... eeecsereseeneeee 2
neighbourhood?
Xow alread Savabdo Vadrh Aad, SdHedobO After 10 pm ad, 10 Notd BOBD........cseeveneeesves 3
toracbann abdgsdu adage? After 11 pm Fad, 11 NOI BOG «0... cesererserenenves 4
After midnight 2G,023, SOBD......-...-.-.ern-- 5
Would not worry SoBMd........erssenesneenennees 6
Don’t know/Can't say Nedu/sevvueriab........
At what time in the evening would you stop After 7 pm B02 7 Motd SOBC.....cccerscnsesenesreenens
feeling safe withdrawing money from your
After
8 pm ad, 8 Mot BOT «0... es eesecseneeneenes 2
neighbourhood ATM?
Boe ana Aadabae dari Nad, ds e300 After 10 pm ad, 10 Mots SOBTD.........neceenenenee 3
atoaodoes én Srawaen abdgsdu After 11 pm Fad, 11 NOt BOB .......erererserneane 4
anab3d? After midnight 0G,023, SOBD........--rseesenvee 5
Would not worry 30BQD0.....-.cresssessesneneenennes 6
Don’t know/Can’t say Radu/sevueriee........
How much of a problem do you think crime is Big problem GG WALA, ......-..oescsoeecesveeeeneessnns
in your area?
Somewhat of a problem Maiveah Wadz,.......2
NAD JSesso vdoag oa) dog Jadz,
Not much of a problem deg Sada,abw......... 3
odadsd?
Not a problem at all Bada, abe _) 4
Don’t Know (Qe) .xcusrscsesscresaconessveneustsnienenvceneen 99
What do you think is the single most Burglary BANUGA .......eecseesssesneereenseenneenerenerens
prevalent crime in this residential area? (Do
not prompt. Record the respondent's answer) RODDEEY OCIS necescrssermetiverennnommnvieannteeenveiien 2
B Mv BSe3d0 owv Sdoind ocd wsorad Physical Assault 3,88 B .........cccsecconessnesnuesens 3
ana odds? Sexual Assault/Harassment U,oA8 BU/ SMadv.....
(Boiraroh Seve, eusdaodd wvgd oan04) Fraud in chit fund, investment scheme,
oy ac fh,|ee ee
es Douk, BO BABS 2,00, 4d, F.dHwWdq aon
Fraud in debit/credit/ATM/online ................ 6
Bde /8,Bt¥/av00/6¥ Vat daesd
Abduction/ Kidnapping @S8®Ob~.............0000
AOR ERROR E REN ERE NEREOE SERS EEEER ENE RENE SERENE OOOH ES

Suicide OU, Wh, ......cscssrescnsessrvesancevessnsnnevensenevece

Road accidents O% OBWEB........ccsesseeerenveenees 10
Custodial Death Gat Ta) .......cccccccceeerecceeeeneen 1
Medical negligence 3,3,3e0 AUFR, pavodbbiaucies 12
Alcohol Poisoning G,AeVIT Ford... 13
i 14
Religious/Caste violence Gadr /e5e3 bow.......15
Gang violence M00) 808 .......ccccseresenneneneeeee
TAEO RENEE HERE ESET OEE RE EER ER EERE SHORE

wevercesnevreeseeseees IQ

99
5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National...

Coding Category ) Skip

Do you know where your nearest police RE eee ee 1 T

station or chowki is? N
deb, 83 Sader Tats/ 3 20d awe? OO) Snes 2

How safe you think your neighbourhood is? Very safe nav abogs CeeEO es a a 9 “|
?
deb, Salad oa) IQs edadgs? Somewhat safe MAW AIS .......--eeceesees 2
Somewhat unsafe aoe VADgB .............

How often do police patrol this area?

& BSessO oad, e798 Haden’ rit Acdoinses?

During the last one year, has anything been

stolen or attempted to be stolen from your
possession or from the possession of any Incident
member of your family? (house/ vehicles/ Report
phones/household appliances/ goods/ Part 1,
jewellery) 8¥0 toch Bardo Awd,Oda vga
Aad, HAabadd ainayde Say svaadabe/
BBolnd Bobs aadbBe(d/mes/Saev’/s
Bab/ Adri /wads)
During the last one year, has anyone damaged
or tried to cause damage to your property
(house/ vehicles/phones/household Incident
appliances/ goods/jewellery)? 87a word Report
Part 2,
Barao Aad, sant ainoedda Sav ArBdoo Page 17
OGar Hen Anas
Babs aedbSe(as/mroas/Doeak/ ads

During the last one year, have you or your If YES,

family members lost money due to fraud in a Go to
chit fund, property deal or any other Incident
investment scheme? Report
8G work Bardo dea) eda Aad, dASabdm

Has any member of the

debit card, online or ATM frauds and has lost
money? Aad, dAabdO airowide Sde¥ sobre,
234 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

Coding Category hese

ambacoe? sarmsedom = ws dareariw nad Incident

Same Beebd oGae 1.8 Hed. eamaym
B. Stared at indecently that made
them feel uncomfortable
Buy oaA O32 AecBc) os6ri
6bs50dm?
C. Touched indecently, pinched,
groped sume auedm, sjddo,
&adm
D. Followed by people that made
them uncomfortable Vb&eS0mad0F
Bad vada) hoewOrda
E. Lewd vulgar, unwanted messages
via SMS or Internet ax 20 ant
Rou Ae thous 63 wdbev, vedas
ater wodcy
F. Others: (Record the response)
aso(ousd
adabéee)
Has any member of the family gone missing
in past one year?
8¥G womd dardO Aad, ds JdH,dO
Aroawdde SvchaaeAag0e?

AMurderded sf a
During the last one year, has there been any
unnatural deaths in the family including
through
Bsucdeese, ts a
[€-Custodial
deathwema) [a
BYOB wom Sarad & anohds SeOdos Aad,
Hewongo ainaAdte ota Tos Ade?
D. Medical negligence
B,G,deab dorgs
E. Road accidents, train Accidents
od , dew vd
F. Alcohol poisoning a3, Sow
G. Others: (Record the response)
QBS(wvsd ody)

Have any of the followingincidentsoccurred |

s—(‘“‘“‘;CC <
in your village/locality in past year? READ A. Bandhs or Hartals woot/
OUT OR SHOW CARD aduve
BY word darao Nad, BY/acdesso &
arate Gut BHSe? B. Farmer protest 3,30 B8uu8

Bathe MatWs4 war LH seod C, Labour and student agitations

, SIs HA AoaSenv Keeney
D. Violence due to religion
bow

KCVS Questionnaire.Doc 10
5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National... 235

Q Question Coding Category Skip

During the last one year, have you or any Yes | No | Ifyes for |
person in your family been denied access to: A. Public Well/Hand Pump/Other any of
8VG vod dardd Jad, devowd Aaa,6r1 Water Resource arB0s wed/8, these,
Ome Nab & ainade Psabrd ows Bow/asd Yew aew Sete
owOaerddve? B. Public Transport Report
MBPBVs av6yry Part 10,
Page 44

D. Government Buildings
Beard 83 Gri
E. Gram Sabha/Ward committee
Maad Bes/aacdr SS
F. Public Schools/Educational
Institutions
MBPS FI /Ide, Sognw
G. Hospitals/Clinics
SA8,/300°
During the last one year, have you or anyone Cos
aS 6 OS
in your family faced A. Physical Assault 3,48 J esses
BV5 Loch dardO Nab, evond Ida,
B. Social Exclusion maads
Bae Ned & ainadae cde acd624d00?
vbaao Incident
Report
C. Untouchability o%3.3 ae ee

E. Public humiliation including

being made fun of in public

you for a bribe? 670 womh dar a0 Aart

Age MIdrBI8 Psd, Jsord sucie,cA
OBae Gadeak 22,08 voed SeGdoe?
During the last one year, do you know of amy =| YES «..secs.sesssesesessnsnsnencsnsnsnensesssensnnensntocssensnenesnens
person who has been assaulted by any public
Sereant, governmentAart
BV6 word dardO
employes ot pores?
ainade 38 abA),
NAIR
ae
Be estcercoimestaeatoerinarca 2
MBBS
PV, Doar d ovcta,cA eGae

Were there any other people immediately == | No OME GAGA QO... ssessesessesesssrenesveneneevensennens
present who might be|
interview? listening during the htetbeHOGS sesssssseeenenseernereasoennenevecven
HoSseAS sad Oc) seOAdood dari —[_ ther adult male family members..................

wacodide wos?

Small crowd 238, M0) ......-.seeereveer ha

OL a |
236 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

At some stage did you notice something that

made you feel that the respondent was
answering under some fear or pressure?
Andee GoBdO wuss NADSw ainaycioe
Bob wer wadoO wus 3ogQdom ondde
Aad, NAS, wos?
Language of the interview:
Ca
(Code accordingly)
Premise
RoBSrAG wea ( susds, emronah Boeck Presser
adds) PMalyalmeboaiwwe a
CCS A
Ts
7
Hindi &o8
ca
[Ronkaniaaoee
Peneiahoh
(eared
INCIDENT REPORT @udob 308

How many times has the incident occurred in

the last one year?
Twice O32) ee8
8VG word SarGO oa) 208 & Gus ASddda?
Thrice Soa 28

F
More than thrice in the last year
8YG word SarGO aro wo6Aow Sei),
Time of occurrence of the most recent Early Morning (5am to 10am)
incident: anowmesd

Seo aSeas Gus sdoan sadoab Late Morning (10 am to 12pm) vert
Early Afternoon (12pm to 3pm)
Woe, B38,Awoed
Late Afternoon (3pm to 5pm) Hoa,85 Joss
Early Evening (5pm to 7pm) anvxoz
Late Evening (7pm to 9pm) Soz Sosa
Early Night (9pm to 12am) oeSfavors
Late Night (12am to 5am) 32 093,
Don't Know/Can't Say Redeu/sevuaricd
if No,
skipto
16E
at was of the pro
(Don't read out the ian, Markoncltipls, a
Wallet ac eeu ae
options as respondents replies)
16C A wuss Ponds, aind ddd wd ( woh, Credit card / ATM card
tidieB, wabualy vay wusdardd sewSgos BAtF Pdr /aao
soeade
ewelleyedse |
ikl cain
Mobilephoneaur Geer | 6
5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National... 237

OR i icintencnmnre 4
EE i 5

60,001 65,000.BRE RT ates

ON tN rrccocakthcatenntnseninatentasssacreean AO
BODOG BOO cassscsnssnsnarénnssasanrianssenisoanssarenanse4
Ge ee ENEDsogcssahantninbnasantannsninsnessanninacens Sh
IE OD rsecscecisccencaatieatlosesmeincun
ELSIE *
Overg0,000 GA90,000 BAA, DCB .....--verssvee00017
Don't Know/Can't Say NaSty/a#eveuanie.....99

2. eee ime an egd—

Bi eet Remi, :
bas ae ' ig? in _* ea
meta oes Bee tN ¢

pil 4 ge
tala 5
a > <1
) <@4@e- Fam oO ™~
238 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

What was the location of the theft? Home aad

8Y¥35 AdaAY avo alraad? Friends house Jto abs
Work Place 8usdag¥
Do not prompt (Saierabnvay Sevdadsed
On the street OeBobO
vade wusb0)
Public transport PWra0s TON
Commercial place
(Malls, Theatre, Restaurant)
Doedes, av (Are, Babess’, Hoeciu*)
Place of worship See av
Neighbourhood area NGHoS Ges
Educational Institutes doe, Soy
Playgrounds 6836 ab,oes
Hospitals 6&2,
Police Stations Ze08 oes
Other places: (PLEASE SPECIFY) 230(
Ora ah See)

Did you/your family member see the

perpetrator of the theft?
8¥3s aAnaGadAy Neqy/Nad, Hewondsa@
meeBBoo?
If 16G is yes, do they know who the
perpetrator of the crime is? 168 7 euso Had
HomeIad SY 3s AVBdao dari rewe?
If 16H is yes, who was it: (Do not prompt)
16a Ff WSS BD omdd sy3s anBdad
Friend Jes
Gadd? (Balrorabnvay SeVeoased wade
Colleague Saedia,cA
wvBbs0) Member of the locality 3,de8o Jax,
Acquaintance 38230bR30)
Member of your caste group/jati/biradari
Aa, srsabsa
Member of your religion Na, Gavraaa@
Others: (Please Specify)
8
ead(oOrdaoh wee)
Why do you think that your property was Previous enmity &088 3,02,
stolen? (Do not prompt the answers)
Land related disputes gcd SowoHac Aad 2
Ad,62 08 BY Bs Anaroddsdmsd?
Family property disputes Bewond 6d Aaa 3
(Sairarobrivay SePseae2ded vdde wsO00)
Due to my caste Sq, Sad SedEBoOd
Due to my religion 34 Badr sedmHod
Due to my gender
8X, Oona sadmBos
Due to my mother-tongue Sq,
Due to my native state Bq, Ben, ove,H00
Due to my sexual orientation
AR YsoNs Baygdvoo
Due to my disability 88 A8eSdvod
Due to my skin colour 3%, a, wQBos
Due to other reasons: (PLEASE SPECIFY)

Was any physical force

or threats used w TOs BPD secitratactetaititinniecion waaiante verbose
trying to steal the property?
Ud BHalnan B.b8 wo sateen wer vidos No ay PPP CEPR SPECS eer hhh hhh hhh hh hhh he eee ee eee 2

wguaddse?
Did anyone get hu during the incid FRE GEPEd spepetenenieviemalintnnnientivensieun errr 1

KCVS Questionnaire.Doc 14
5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National... 239

Burtobo anSracde dev sdhbve? BN i acheahdensnscnbttnekdeerssSeeadsnbaninenansncnsscone 2 }

Did you feel threatened? a scssanladilbananarsn war 5
aor Sdhsairadbse?
das socacacaronensosnasesnensnnsontnaarennanenshaanasnshannns 2
| Tf 16L is yes, was anyweapon
used in the _ Fen TD occ neoeame PRE A i
theft?
De Naess cae acoremngaendebeclancaenhatanacnnpsnaannnibasia’ 2
16 ae Nh ousd S*dodd Sy SAS, ainaAce
solng wvdacdoe?
If 16M is yes, did you/your family member
resist the theft?
16 20 A wusd S*hodd sy snday Ved/ dad,
Hewowsamd SaHoo?
Did you report the incident to the police
Bud orl ZedevOrt BH arehOoe?

If 16P is No, Why did you not report? (Do not Fear of retaliation 3@A Sew 362
prompt)
Saw Seow gab
16 3 A susd av comadd ddd a8 anddu?
Lack of evidence wadbdOu
(Baivarabrivah, SePdaded wade suvsdw0)
Didn’t know where to report
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED BY THE a0 308 anda rodev
RESPONDENT Didn't know helpline number
MSM Seaayniv hs harid Hdd Bervobaed Sono’ rodsv
Did not want to get stuck in police/court
matters Gederk/ Bocewr JSeosri
dd mdsayaw vaiddov

Did not think the police would be able to

do anything about the case
B8daB wr} Sodesw omodde anwsed
vdmbabu
Did not think police would entertain the
case
Sadeasd Beda, Srichdowsad vAsoy
Police is unfair adesa avobadde
Family matters need not be reported
Bevow Adob AdHanaenda
This is better settled outside the police
station Sedex’ Oasob Badr aBGr wusad

Others: Please specify a8d: Gabdew,

AOra aah Se?)
Don’t Know/Can’t Say ta3u/ Bevoaricd
If 16P is Yes, why did you report? To recover property/person
16 3A ovsd Hdhoadd ad 3dH AwBHO? 84/8,dabmh, ambacdobew
DO NOT PROMPT aoiserabrivay, For insurance reasons da) sadnnen
BeOdaadwseA
wadde wvsOHO
It was a serious event ach Noded Daa
Wanted offender to be caught and punished .5

Tostop
it from happening again/to get help .6
as ach aidos AOAw/ SHrvab ddabew
Other: (Please specify)
240 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

163 Kovso wdodd seri SdH awGH6? ase Sader’ SHovohaeocin sdanad
DO NOT PROMPT daiserabrivad, Went to police station Sedeak¥ oarirt aed ....3
BeVsaaeea wdde wsOso Approached a Police Officer .............0c0e 4
. Bader sdewoay Yeu avid
Don’t Remember SABO ........-::sscsvernensrennenenes 99
If 16P is Yes, what did the police do upon File a complaint Baw GawOacam (Sa
hearing your complaint? (Don’t read out the Register an FIR ag © 6o' Candddm J
options. Mark multiple options as
respondents replies) Despatched a PCR vehicle
163 NR wsd Sdodd dad, dow seva aed 3% 608 mB BwhADD
Boden ow arwGBdc? ( sab, EBewea, Took any injured persons for medical
WIGMdoh SBew3Igos omesah,nvay mw32)
assistance Mmredreoe J.gabay 3,5,deab
8s sdchoayd
Asked you to go to another police station
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED BY THE ded Godeak van aoerddos AA
RESPONDENT BEVIS
msdmodd Seodayriv ads ahayrid ado.
Came to the spot and investigated
BV, wom SIsanAdad
Asked you not to file the complaint 7
Bad MowdAenddom seeawm
Did not do anything Oke arwvdu
Other: (Please specify) agd(WOraaeA
wey)

If 16P is Yes, Were you satisfied by the action

of the police? 16 3h wusd Sdodd adex*
SoHed wrt avr Jd adobe?
If 16U is Yes, Why are you satisfied by the
police? (Don’t read out the options. Mark
multiple options as respondents replies)
16 oA wss Sdodd oder’ Siaddoos
Baba ur debrt 8 Bd acd ?
( Sok, dele, wadeah vad Sonodaday Bada ser madrid Ey
wBdaIwWd SewSgos rvw3s) They explained the action that they will
take
BNHBAWS Babs orf DS6Acdd
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED BY THE They solved the problem
RESPONDENT Vax, BdHed aVASd
wsImMGd Seddayniv hg hayrid Hdd
. Other: (please specify) a&d (OHra aah
wed)
If 16U is No, Why are you not satisfied by the They were not interested es6n
police? (Don’t read out the options. Mark
multiple options as respondents replies) sagdddoy)
16 ain AK usd aL domadd gedex* They were rude and impolite
Srichdoos
Badd wrt Dadi 5833ae? V3H woenA ada Pagded ssrdsoo,
vay eusdard
( Gal, Lee, wmresoh They did not do enough vemBay arcdy
BewWSgos d3s to file the FIR
They refused
“es : os © BO MaDdAw AoI¢wdAdd
ey tried topersuade
me not to register
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED BY THE an FIR o% © 6O GaDdAGOS SAN
RESPONDENT
MBImrdd
SeOdaniv ag aayrtd #80.

Bevad
They put me at fault AQ ce SA,oomd
Beaded
They wanted a bribe vow seOda
hey physically assaulted me
Gosh SI avAdwd
KCVS Questionnaire.Doc 16
 5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National...

They verbally abused me JA AL, Joc

They didn't find or apprehend the offender
edoaBabay Hads0u/ DIAS ardde
They didn't recover my property (goods)
AA, Gd (Woe) SSH soadv 13
They didn't keep me properly informed
AN BSairA ark deddu
They were slow to arrive név SGBaeh
woadm
Other: (please specify) a3d(NOra aeA
wey)

Was any person arrested due to the incident?

BUAddbos ange J,sabay GAS ArwBdoo?

How serious was the incident to you and your Very S€rIOUS DBY NODES ........eeeseeeseecssseneeereneees
household?
abr aa ded, dat & Pus oad Somewhat Schnie WANA NOME .... ee seveess 2
Rodederacba? Not very serious BBY NoMedSy .......... cece 3
Not serious at all NoMedBe OO ...........ccreeceeesee
Don’t know radu
017 Part Il
17A_ | How many times has the incident occurred in | Once Wadd, ...ccscscessescscreessscesercsecscseseatnescserasersees
the last one year?
8V0 word dardd aad md gust Adda? PNR IMENT TIED oa ira ca vans pote eres cnn ennesseetavepansennt 2
PITS SIN) DN aos oxi ciecrcnnsasurs
cvetesscencryesarsvouatve 3
More than thrice in the last year...............000 4
VG wom Bardo awd wodAos wei)
17B | Time of occurrence of the most recent Early Morning (5am to 10am) .......s.sse-sseseesees
anomn
Late Morning (10 am to 12pM) ........scesesesseesees 2
Bert
Early Afternoon (12pm to 3pM)........ccsereese 3
hor, #8, avo
Late Afternoon (3pm to 5PM)... 4
hed Sos
Early Evening (5pm to 7pm)......--.::0ssessesesereee 5
ana oe
Late Evening (7pm to OPM) ........es:seseseseereeeneee 6
Boe Sosa
Early Night (9pm to 12aM) .........s0ssesseeeneenees
OasNanows
Late Night (12aM to 5AM) ...c..csececsscereerseeeseeseee
3a 093,

If17C if yes, what was type of the property?

Fics eedcattheopts. Mark mmctigl

bo
ore i
options as respondents replies)
174 A oudd Ponds, aired IGG #2 ( sah, T.V 8a
Mobilephonedadr eer

ee
——————
242 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

What was approximate value of property? :

edab vomrae Pu, oa)? 5001 — 10,000
10,001 —15,000
15,001 —20,000
20,001 —25,000
25,001 —30,000
30,001 —35,000
40,001 —45,000
50,001 -55,000
55,001 —60,000
60,001 —65,000
65,001 —70,000
70,001 —75,000
75,001 —80,000
80,001 —85,000
85,001 —90,000
Over 90,000 G@90,000 cbe5
Don’t Know/Can't Say Redu/eevuena
What was the location when the damage was Home ®S
dues Aide qv olrebenAiay? Friends house Je&30 as
Work Place 8ux0q¥
On the street DeHabO
Public transport Mravs TO
Commercial place
(Malls, Theatre, Restaurant)
Dorsey, Bv¥(arev*, Habeuso®, Bnreir)
Place of worship game Av
Neighbourhood area S0Hed Bes
Educational Institutes doe, Somniw
Playgrounds 6u0 a),aes

Other places: (PLEASE SPECIFY)

add (NAFa aA See)

Did you or your family member see the

perpetrator of the damage?
BYBs ANAGASA) Nea/Nad, Hewowdda
AaeBBoo?
If 17G in yes, do you o they
perpetrator of the crime is?
178 Nh evsd Hr) oomad syss anAadsad
Aabrt awe?
If 17H
in yes, who was it: (Do not prompt)
1708 A wad Boh oomdd sys anadad
ciyach? (Salrarab seOdaceseAa wade evo)

Member of your religion Xa), Saraaed

Others; (Please Specify)_
08
wdd(OOrayaoh Bed)

KCVS Questionnaire.Doc 18
 5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National... 243

17J | Why do you think that your property was Previous enmity 088 2,02. ............. Sr page
damaged? (do not prompt) :
aad, 62 a8 syss ardeadbsdadsd? Land related disputes gedont SowoHac Daaa . .

( Sabveroh SeVseded vade Sevo) Family property disputes Henowd e& daa 3
Due to my caste Wa, Ga3SI0 6000 .............. 4
Due to my religion Sq Gadrd GeHH06 ...... 5
Due to my gender 3X, Cord s9dMH00.......... 6
Due to my mother-tongue Sq Aves ~raddhood.......
Due to my native state Wx, Bev, 09e,H03 .....8
Due to my sexual orientation ..............0cesene 9
BX U,0AS 3a, 3dbod
Due to my disability Jy, D6uTdvos.............. 10
Due to my skin colour 3a, ad, weQH0G. ........... 11
Due to other reasons: (PLEASE SPECIFY)

98
asd Bwarw(IOFa
aa Se?)
Do not know RA30/BEVOAND........eseecesseeesees 99

17K | Did you report the incident to the police:

BUd ory dey GodesDOor BSH aAvwBAoo?

: 17L__| If 17Kis No, Why did you not report? (Do not Fear of retaliation 3A Sem 362
prompt)
178 R wusd av docadd Bod a8 Andou? Sarysadon dab
Lack of evidence Tagdbdow ey
Didn’t know where to report
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED BY THE 20 308 anda reodv
RESPONDENT
mBIEIde SeOdayniv ads arid #80 Didn't know helpline number
Barabdaed Sou’ edu
Did not want to get stuck in police/court
matters Gadeas/ Boeene J.dederi
dd mdsoNDH aa dd0v
Uncomfortable to go to Police Station
Bode’ rast eeerdaym vasamrA®
Did not think the police would be able to
do anything about the case
& 38dnd wry Sadesw orodde
anmad vdsdu
Did not think police would entertain the
case
Sadeae seria, Sichaowsod vdsou

Family matters need not be reported

Bevow Ido ScAaNGewda.
244 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

vsoehabay, Bcd 58 deaesesd

To stop it from happening again/to
get help/others
Hs ach sridods NOxAw/ Heoad Sdabw
Other: (Please specify)
aBo(Nhraaeh Se?)
98
If 17K is Yes, how did you report the above Called 100 0.1008, 8dainBd
; :
crime?
eatsther police help!rele
asic
17 BR vss HPhodd wert dod arBHO?
Went to police station Zedea* attr Bees
Approached a Police Officer
Boder¥ sSevtory es dvd
Don’t Remember SAdv

If 17K is Yes, what did the police do upon File a complaint Gem oav020@ erg
hearing your complaint?
Register an FIR ag © 6O’ GandAdmd |2 |
(Don't read out the options. Mark multiple
options as respondents replies) Despatched a PCR vehicle
178 Sond Jad, Gow see Gedea oad Ad Sof eB BWSADD
BRAM? ( sah, LHseG, oso iva, Took any injured persons for medical
wBdoed SewSgos w32) assistance Medrteod d.dabahy 3,5,deab
sss sdcieakm
Asked you to go to another police station
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED BY THE sed Boden cain Beervaos SSK
RESPONDENT
msdmrdd Seodariv ahs Darid wos. wevaw
Came to the spot and investigated
Bvs, oom BAsanvadwd
Asked you not to file the complaint
Red cavddenddom seam 7
Did not do anything ON AwGOv
Other: (Please specify) a8d(Nhraaeh
mHOd)
If 17K is Yes, Were you satisfied by the action
of the police? 17 8h wusd Sdodd Aadex*
SNichdoos 8.ah0 wrt Nadrh Bd adobe?
If 17P is Yes, Why are you satisfied by the
police?
(Don’t read out the options. Mark multiple
options as respondents replies) They registered the complaint accurately
17S Rovg0 Sods eden Sricddeos VOairaA Gew mwndacad
Badd wrt Aadrt o8 33 ad ? They registered the complaint quickly
( Goh, ice8eB, wabesob,nvaty evsderd ee ee
They explained the action that they will
er wen) take watchSricbeawa sabd wr}
CIRCLEIFRESPONDENT MENTIONS =| 280%)
WBdEIWD Seodayniv hs aayrid add. They solved the problem
Bada, Admd anda a
Other: (please specify) e8d(dhra
ae

pa sea
weed)
If 17P is No, Why are you not satisfied by the nterested esr
multiple options as respondents replies) Srgmwoy
17 SA wvsd ay dommdd Aedex sraved wr} | They were rude and impolite
Aah O86 3d ay ? e3d wdenh, Hv dbus ansvmAda.
(wolylva ceed, wabentytvat, evgderd SJ
BewSqos rowd3s) Pa

CIRCLE IF RESPONDENT MENTIONS

wBdmrdd SeOdariv ada adartd wd0.

KCVS Questionnaire.Doc 20
5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National... 245

) They took a long time to register my FIR

AW, os © SO CaMdAw HEY Sw
Srimbgoosm |
They told me to go away fromthe police | |
Station Sedex¥ Ovaidbos Keervaogs
Seow
They put me at fault Jax, aheeke SB,
Er] Tales)
They wanted a bribe vow 8e9G@> 9
They physically assaulted me
B,b8oah a anadwd
They verbally abused me SXAv, 3,dm
They didn't find or apprehend the offender B
esordabay, Ba80v/ BIAS arddv
They didn't recover my property (goods)
MA, 62 (SSH) SombdoaAaMsodou
They didn't keep me properly informed
BAR air arb deddo 14
They were slow to arrive
038 wav Sado wodm
Other: (please specify) a8d(NOra
aah
wev6)

Was any person arrested due to the incident?

BPUAIBowGSO ange J,gabay GSAS
anAdos?
How serious was the incident to you and your Very serious QBY MOQ... eeceesecseceeeseeeene
household? Somewhat serious MAMTA Noes... 2
dabrt da dad, adairt & Guat oa
Not very serious WBY NoMeday .........c.eeceeceee 3
Not serious at all NoMedae OO ..........essseesennee
a eer

More than thrice in the last year

8G word Sarao aww edAos Bed
Time of occurrence of the most recent incident
eo adevs gudsow Add sabab

Late Evening (7pm to 9PM) ........-s:-vecseeverveens 6

Boe Aosd
Early Night (9pm to 12aM) .....0.0.e+ec0veree july
Cad aword
Late Night (12am to 5am) BG 098)........00000 8
Don't Know/Can't Say ....cseseceereeverssersernes ee
nhade/sevuericd
Property
CB essievscovereermsnvurviverenvesvese Solevechar inion
Ce
|
88 aes
246 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

Approximately how much money did you lose | © —5000.......+ssssssssuersssrenssonsesnennernsensensennnsnnsnnenns

in this incident? ONO See) SOO E crescdernacavicansxancoinatreesebhantonshoeemea
vormenh & guNtabd oa) Br 6¥cbda0hO? 10,001 ~15,000
15,001 —20,000......-.-0+
20,001 —25,000
25,001 —30,000
30,001 —35,000
AED Ok TO ss ssesekeescinenensutnurensanszesbemadarsatoare 8
BO O0T 55 ODO ena crscencipovetecsenerntonromondiaes 9
EE OO =O 000 eeecsscrascressisrssvpnrcansanrs=nesesnaseaes 10
BO D015 0000 issoncestesoxccnah organs sainpeorsvenries 11
G5,000 70 0000 no
rencpaszseecsntersentnerpraserrancesmmasranes 12
FED OO TFs ONO aa sncensicestevep oessaopccwaoee toevern sia 13
FEO 1 50 O00 ipoc sos suvsbences chevncpeosvouscenrgeetaeeeey 14
OT) HESTC a ee -15
BROT SSS MIO sos cents ncas ncn ce oe etoae 16
OVeT9O,000 GO9O,000 CEB ......cscceeeseneerereeee 17
Don’t Know/Can’t Say redu/eevvericn.......
Was the money recovered?
BA Soda, 3,Se?

See Nvnorahel ae
If 18F is No, Why did you not report? (Do not Fear ofretaliation 3A Sew After
prompt)

Tackofendencemmaaisoy
| a|
18 ag NMevsd av dod 3dH OF ABOU?
( Saivarah SeVsnawed wade Sevo)

CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED BY THE

MBI Sodan ahs arid wdd

a
NHeobaecd Sowo® oie
Did not want to get stuck in police/court
1-4
matters
Sede aces Adare,
Lmdoryahed addd0y
Uncomfortable to go to Police Station
Bde overt Kaervaym vse
Did not think the police would be able to re]
do anything
about the case 7
mse iain"
oe not think police would entertaint!

doderich Bea, Sicddew

sd eAdvOL
Police is unfair Sedesa A, absdoy
Family matters need not be reported
Hevow Aaxab SdHandendad
This is better settled outside
the police
station

If 18F is Yes, why did you report?

180% Mhwusd Hod of SdH arAHO?
5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a Nationa
l. 247

esoagniva Schade
It was a serious event 4
ach Notes ASob
Wanted offender to be caught and punished .5
edoeOabah &Acd 88 Neder.
To stop it from happening again/to
OR lisa iaidisitaseptiniisveki sicantadaninsasne 6
hs ach endos NOSw/ SHoab Sdadvw
Others: (Please specify)
98 230(0Ora aah
Bev?)
If 18F Yes, how did you report the above Called 100 30.100 SB
BOAIAT ...........necssesseees
crime?
18 ag A wusd Bdoad wert adh awGBS? Called other police helpline ..................cc0ss000000 2
Goce Harooadavdn sdanrad
Went to police station. ..............ccccsccseseseseceseseee 3
Sader man Boed
Approached a Police Officer ..............:cc:s:00:0000 4
Sader sdeaory ves ands
Don’t Remember SIAW..........-eesnsesereseeseesnseres

Ifi8F is Yes, what did the police do upon File acomplaint dem maddscm
hearing your complaint?
(Don't read out the options. Mark multiple Register an FIR ag © uo® Oanddacdm
options as respondents replies) Despatched a PCR vehicle
18 a Nevsd sw dodd dad, dow sed 32 eof mB BWhAGH
Bader’ Ox aAVAcicd? ( sob, Uceed, Took any injured persons for medical
wm@ahiva, cusdard SewSqos rod3d) assistance Mrdrteos J,3abay 3,G,deab
BsS sdchoayd
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED BY THE Asked you to go to another police station
RESPONDENT wed aden cast Hoervaos AA SeIaw
MBI SeOdayriv Hs dayrid wad. Came to the spot and investigated
Bvs, wor ZISaAnvAdd

Did not do anything dae anaddw aw

Other: (Please specify) aSd(Qhra
aah see) |98|
If 18F is Yes, Were you satisfied by the action
of the police?
18a Mouse Pchond Aader’ Sricvdvod
Babs ort dabrt 33 acabe?
If 18K is Yes, Why are you satisfied by the They listened to the complaint ed SKIP TO
police? Soda 18N
(Don't read out the options. Mark multiple
options as respondents replies) They registered the complaint accurately
188 a0cd dadex® Srichdnod Badd ur} —|-Baka acd mawddccd
Aart o8 Bd ad ? They registered the complaint quickly 8 |
(ok, tokteA, waduokriva cusgderdd —| Rada seriGomddcicd
peep aah) tleSolarches
gaiwrtaubtct |4|
ained the action that will

CIRCLE IF RESPONDENT MENTIONS _| They solved theproblem Saba, dad

modded SeOdariv ag aayid 80. | aay
Otter:(pleasespecify)waa(aBrajaah
wee)|98
way
They were not interested wa6r

ee
They were rude and impolite

Thydidnotdoenough esc coy |9

They refused
to file the FIR 4

FIR a8 © 60 Cawdadod
Aart wd
sobs anradca
248 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

MBI Seodayriv ag aadrid wd0. They took a long time to register my FIR
AA, OF © SOF DIDONW YSY BH
Srnimsénoam
They told me to go away from the police
station Sedeak Oaidbod geervaog 7
weevow
They put me at fault Ba, ede SB,
wedow
They wanted a bribe voz Seow
They physically assaulted me
B,b8aeA ad arwBdd
They verbally abused me AxAv 5,0c Lu |
They didn't find or apprehend the offender
vsoebabay ambsOu/ BIAS avedou
They didn't recover my property (goods)
AA, G2 (BIH) Hdssos0v
They didn't keep me properly informed
RAN B6airA Arbs Jesdu
They were slow to arrive
vad wav Saaoeh wodm
Other: (please specify) eSd(NHra
aah See)

How serious was the incident to you and your Very S€ri0us WBY MOMS oo... .ceeccseecsseseneneneeesnnves
household? Jabr He dad, dar & Gud oa Somewhat serious WATaA NoMeD. 0... evens 2
Nohdedaeaday? Not very serious WB NOMGB .........-..eecseeennne 3
Not serious at all Moqede OO...........ceseesseeennnes -
Re ee ae a EES

19A | How many times has the incident occurred in AER ORE EER ENR R REE ER TREE EERE SEER OEE E RENE EER EEE CERES

the last one year? ‘

ava womd Bardo oa) Parte) gus adds? FA ER REE R TREE EE EEE ESSERE EERE SEER O RHEE EERE REE

NANO R EEE R ESE SOE ER OE REE EET EEEEEEREE ER ER EEN

More than thrice in the last year.................0 4

BG word darGO aed eOAog sed)
Time of occurrence of the most recent Early Morning (5am to 10am) awoesen .........
Seo adeds Dudod Sadab Late Morning (10 am to 12pm) WOM ........-0000 2
4 Early Afternoon (12pm to 3pm).............00+-+-« «3
HHABS, Sword
Late Afternoon (3pm to 5pm) HGxZ,s evosv.....
Early Evening (5pm to 7pm) aua028.............. 5
Late Evening (7pm to 9pm) Boz Sows ......... 6
Early Night (9pm to 12am) oaSf awoe........ 7
Late Night (12am to 5am) BG O23)... 8
Don't Know/Can't Say Redu/eevoarnad.......

What kind of debit /ATM/online fraud did | Online password theft ..............cccseeeeseeseeneeen 1
you face? Ont Uyaf anat date 8yas
Gired OeBobe AOU srcie/atiao/ SFU, | aTM pin theft from public Machine svsecnnn.2
atloo dof BYSs adet ddedsO :
Phishing d<or* ......... cosennrerrevencaninverveewrtoe: |
Callers asking for Pins ........00seseereereenene
Baracbaadd Saf soda
Other (please specify): —
aah wee)
@Bd(Ora
Don't Know/Can't Say Ma&y/sevorariad 99
0 SOUS sevectrntrevinemrecovervenseunererunmneceveeentarvevien 1

RE:
SSS SENG I“
10,001 -15,000 SFE EERE TEER ETE TERR REE Ree Ree eeeee:en |
5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National... 249

en bar ~~ a rR OE ee ;
ES Ee 6
) SS EE Looe 7
I aiaiatattesendagbionesestinaiticsacasnances 8
a cine aseasaansansnanancene 9
Be aa sasunicipnAcennansunsnamaratonnsannane 10
| OO ane inishicnetnetinbannannensanibens 11
GE IR eR ININ sca sinsapsdapenshaaticsnnssanaiionsnsance 12
) SAS6 SE RL EAA RIE 13
: Na I ee ison canta tananaansasniasi 14
CR cer anh icaencdohesadinsinandnnnatannsaneas 15
RS a ssmnnnpsnananssenane 16
OVET9O,O00 GO90,000 ACB ....ccccccersereenensenees 17

Was the money recovered?

BO Dadah, dd, Se?

Did you report the incident to the police: Bei | Yes BD ou... ccccsscsseesssseseseseeeesesnensrscssssaresessonsens If YES,
url dea daderdOrt SIH arBHov? ‘a ips
19G If 19F is No, Why did you not report? (Do not
prompt)
19 ag Av Dodd BH ad anddu?
Lack of evidence aegdbdou
Didn’t know where to report
20 308 anda nese
Didn't know helpline number
Barabared Sono’ redsv—o7

Did not want to get stuck in police/court

matters Geden*/ Goeewr asada
8 mdsow
aa aaddddv
Uncomfortable to go to Police Station
Bader’ ast Goerdamd vasarAw
Did not think the police would be able to
do anything about the case
Bodesm omrdde andsed vadsdu
Did not think police would entertain the
case
Godesm Beda Sicddawsed vasov
Police is unfair Zod¢ed wV,abddsu 9
Family matters need not be reported 10|
Bewons Ada) AdHaNGerdad
This is better settled outside the police
station
Sader¥ Oatiah Boon wasor wwsad
Bad past experience with reporting to
Police
Bader rt SdH anAd sty vaxrjadd
Others: (Please specify)
asd(NOra
aah Ber)
99
If19F is Yes, why did you report? 1
190% Mteusd a dodd od JdH a728O8?
sete nen ereeee

rr
250 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

19 os Nh ousd Bond sert doh avwBOHO? Called other police helpline.............-..:.:-0-0

Bader’ Saroadaedn sdanrad
Went to police station Sedea¥ overt Gaed.... 3
Approached a Police Off1CeF ...........000
ere 4
Baden sdedor Jed avad
Don’t Remember SISW.......ccsecssesresnenenenennrenes

If 19F is Yes, what did the police do upon File a complaint dew candodm
hearing your complaint? Register an FIR a © 6 GawdrAdm
(Don’t read out the options. Mark multiple
options as respondents replies) Despatched a PCR vehicle
19a BSdodd Aad, daw se? Geden® ow A% eof mB BWhADD
anGad? ( sah, Ldeed, omsahrvar, Took any injured persons for medical
WIM SewSgogs row3ss) assistance mrearteod d.d0bmy,
BiB, deab BSS Sddookm
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED BY THE Asked you to go to another police
RESPONDENT station
evsdmdd VAG susda abs aw rid #286 sed Bodea¥ overt Goervao0g ASK
BVO
Came to the spot and investigated
Bvs, wom BAaanvBdm
Asked you not to file the complaint
Baw mandarevddom sevam 7
If missing person, filed a missing
person report 8¥@aaes d.daincdd,
BYRees 3dH moadacad

Other: (Please specify) e8d(ABraaeh

wee)

If 19F is Yes, Were you satisfied by the action

of the police? 190g Neuss Sdodd Aaden®
Srichdoos Babs wrt Dadrt Bs acsaie?
19)
If 19K is Yes, Why are you satisfied by the They listened to the complaint SKIP TO
police? Gawd sevad 19N
(Don’t read out the options. Mark multiple
options as respondents replies) They registered the complaint accurately
198 S033 adeat’ Sicddood sav0 wr} VSairsA dow candradad
dat 58 3,4 ad ? They registered the complaint quickly
Gaday veri mamddom@
( Soh, odeseB, waduoh iva evsdard
ha arathe action that they will
Sew3goe row)
vd Siaddaws sadd wrt OS6Adm
CIRCLE IF RESPONDENT MENTIONS
MBIEID NAG wvgds ag ada ridad8 They solved the problem
Rada, Som arBded
Other: (please specify) a&d(QHra
aah 98|
Be?)

-lipgdaalagaees
{Don't read out the options. Mark multiple
options as respondents replies)
SAgdOY
They were rude and impolite
198 ay aodd Medex! aichdeod
gabd wr] | vat weunh arsmAd
Tv,wd
seedou
They did not do enough vereda) arcvde ei

oe © OO Ganmdaw dossdaca a
 5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National...

Bq og © SO’ CaDdSW OSV BU

Srimeeoaw
They told me to go away from the police —
station Zedex¥® Oaidbod Heervaos -
eevad)
They put me at fault Sq adeciabe Sa), =
oed0m s
They wanted a bribe voz ea)
They physically assaulted me
CG.b8aaA we awadw
They verbally abused me Ad Ay 3,dc i,
They didn't find or apprehend the offender
esowabah, Hadsdu/ BAAS araddu
They didn't recover my property (goods)
Aq, $4 (BIH) Hadddosdu
They didn't keep me properly informed
BAR Dai Arbss deddv
| They were slow to arrive
08 weY Baa woad
: Other: (please specify)__ add(WBra aah
= te

Very Serious WBY NODES 0.0... essessesneesseeeeereees

Somewhat serious Warde Noes... 2
Not very serious OBY NoMede ........-..sseeecsvee: 3,
Not serious at all NoMedSe OV... 4
REE GBI CUB oe conrcincrsscapoooniangenegsiessitvniic

How many times has the incident occurred in | Once t2dd,.......sscsssesseseseenceeseeseesereeesenceneneeneneoes

the last one year? ?
We och aided) amy und gustAcddvas? sh cab amie pmeaeera
FOE E ERE RE EERE O HEHE NER REENEREERER TOE EE ECHO

More than thrice in the last year ..........:.-+:00++

BY wom Bardo aew ze6Aod Sei)
Time of occurrence of the most recent incident Early Morning awoeess(5am to 10am).........
Seo aden Sad Gudob sadab Late Morning 29r{(10 am to 12pm) .......0000 2
Early Afternoon (12pm to 3pM) ......-sescceseenenee 3
ahon,gg, avoes
Late Afternoon
(3pm to 5pim)........:sssseseeeeenees 4
DHHS Sosd
Early Evening S402 (5pm to 7pm).......-0 5
Late Evening ®oed Sos (7pm to 9pm)........
seeeeeee

HA EEE ERE R REE R ETHER ENTE EE EERE REEEED

0 nt tba
Aeewer eeenee: +n eee ERENT REESE ERNE TWHEREEE

2368
Grabbed,Shoved, Slapped or punched ..........
bAdH, 32).dam, sir Reda eden rigs
cy inant
ROTI iictcpettienictineriasnimne eeeeeeenen4

Buyrivoss Bua waraverd dayiPod ow?

anade
252 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

other weapons
wodew, weh abe asd solndrivod oe?
anadd
Other (please specify):
aso(Nhraaoh se?)
Don’t Know/Can’'t Say
neade/sevoeic

How many people were involved and

aa), SSem wohairAga?

More than three aas6Aos wed)

Don't Know/Can’t Say Re3u/eevoericd
Gender of the perpetrators
aedrdo Son

Do you know who they perpetrator of the

crime is?
e3oe8 AWVAGSa® airedom Aart Nese?

If 20F yes, who was it: (Do not prompt)

2008 A usd Sch oomedd wad aired ?
(cuss Sevsaawe® wade Sev ) Colleague Tatoecte,
cA.
Member of the locality
Acquaintance ¢ 3020 DbedavIIa
Member of your caste group/jati/biradari
Nad, sedabra/Tousm
Member of your religion Ja), DabrFODa)
pane (Please Specify)

@ad(0brdanh Beds)
Why do you think you were attacked? Previous enmity 088 3,03,
(Do not prompt the answers)
Nat 48 od andeaddsdabsd? Land related disputes gacbri SowoHhAd Java
(wusd Beddaaewsed wade Sev ) Family property disputes Htwowd 84 Aaed 3

Due to my religion 85, Gadra sedrBos

Due to my gender
34, OonG Mdméoe.........6
Due to my mother-tongue
Jq Arvgeraab
NOG sick sisispine vettiniets cdl tated 7
Due tomynative state AWAD Bao ove,

Due
to my sexual orientation ............c00000 9
8A J,0AS 33,3 sedrBos
Due to my disability
8X, O8uF sedEB0s .....10
Due to my skin colour 3A ad, wQBod
5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National...

) 20.0 M wugd ev comdd BoB 08 aradeu? Lack of evidence AegdodOu ‘7. 2 ~| the”
Didn't know where to report —T 3 | answers
20 308 ara@waad rede SKIP TO
Didn't know helpline number 4 | 20Q
Sevabard Jono rede
Did not want to get stuck in police/court 5
matters Seder’ / Beetvr deo
dd mIdsaw
Aa ea Id00
Uncomfortable to go to Police Station
Bader oar Baerga vasavAa

Did not think the police would be able to 7

do anything about the case
GOI omvdde aradzd eAsoOu
Did not think police would entertain the
case
POeAm sedah, Srichdaw sed vAwsow
Police is unfair Ge0¢eSm Av,chadsu
Family matters need not be reported

This is better settled outside the police

station
Soden oveiad goon aBGr wusad
Bad past experience with reporting to
Police
Badeak fh 308 avs sy emysod
Others: (Please specify)
asda(NOra aah Sev?)
Don't Know/Can't Say radu/sevoerc
If 201 is Yes, why did you report? To recover property/DPePrson ...........ccseeseseeseneeee
20 Oh wusd S&dodd a8 JdH aBH6? 88/asabay ado Sdabw
For insurance reasons Dead Sadnneni ............. 2
Crime should be reported ...0...........ccc0sccccesesees 3
vdmdnvay dddaArceded
It was a SETIOUS EVENT .............c0cccsseeceseteseseseesenes 4
ach Nodes daab
Wanted offender to be caught and punished. 5
OBoaBoabay SAH BE MeBsed .......seeeserersnnee
To stop it from happeningagain/to
OR ODD aicrsessrsssnvincemvcinicaniinninnstnigin 6
hs ach eridos NOAw/ JHoah Sdobw
Others: (Please specify) === sil... 8
aBd(NHra ah Se?)
If 201 is Yes, how did you report the above
crime?
20 Neudd ePdodd aheOs edords url Bert
308 aH?

police do

pepe fe edosd
254 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

Came to the spot and investigated

Bvs, vom SAsHanGdw
Asked you not to file the complaint 7
Be® mavndaerddom sevaad
If missing person, filed a missing person
report 8¥mbaeedcy d,dairdd, 4:3
BYMBees BH canOrAdm
Did not do anything aXe arcade 4
Other: (Please specify) a8d(NOBraaeh
Be?)

If 20] is Yes, Were you satisfied by the action

of the police?
20aN wed Sdodd qedeat Sicddeoos
Bada orf Nad Bad adabhe?
20N is Yes, Why are you satisfied by the They listened to the complaint dem nc TO
police?
(Don’t read out the options. Mark multiple
Seeded
options as respondents replies) They registered the complaint accurately
200% Novsd SPdodd geder® Simbsoosd | JOainA dew madrow
Baba ort Aad a8 3S ad ? They registered the complaint quickly
(woh, dries, oaeuohiva evsdasd Gladat vert cremOadcich
They explained the action that they will
eer take odd srich8owys Badd wrt IOSD
CIRCLE IF RESPONDENT MENTIONS _| They solved the problem
wMBdmVW Sedan ag aayrid aod6. aba, Sse civBse
Other: (please specify) e3d(NBra aah
wed)

If i is No, Why are you not satisfied bythe | They were not interested #36ri
police?
(Don't read out the options. Mark multiple engddoy
options as respondents replies) They were rude and impolite
20 ar Mss ay aodd eden Sricddood |edduciwA Waddud d8ricw,
Bao wr} Nadi O8 Fd av ? They did not do enough verdad) aradu
(Solnivay Ove, omeohnva svsdord | They refused to file the FIR

They tried to persuade me not to register

CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED BY THE an FIR ao& © GO GaDOABos AAT wd sw
RESPONDENT Bobs anaco

3 ee They
took a long time to register my FIR
Aq, Os © UO CaMdaw ws Bw
Srimsooad
They told me to go away from the police
station Sedea¥ oaridbos Maervaoe
Bedad)
aa Aa hee BQ,

ee
They physically assaulted me

i
 5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National... 255

Was any person arrested due to the incident? | Yes BC) .......-.csssssucvssnvovsovscsesesersussvsnavsnssoeeene "lla
Purddnod aireabes asada, GAINS areBcion? NG GO). onsecnsssnseansnasnensaenrasnsatasacsnensnsncennsnsaeennnenss 2

How serious was the incident to you and your §| Very serious W®Y MODES ooo...
ooocescceceseenen wall
ve » dab, adairt & gust oa Somewhat seriou abameovA nodded
mewhat serious OS i ciasniess2 ?
Not very serious WBY NOMI .........-. ccc 3
Not serious at all NoMedBe BO... resceesene 4

Daan NIN NO ceca darhcasconsiisnisinenssniassasenmens 99

the last one year?

VG womd SardO od) wed Gud Sddda?

More than thrice in the last year

} BVG word darGO aow wedAos Sed)
| Time of occurrence of the most recent Early Morning Qvoeess (5am to 10am)
H ancien Late Morning 23@r{ (10 am to 12pm)
Early Afternoon (12pm to 3pm)
| Hr,BS, avo
it Late Afternoon (3pm to 5pm)
HM,Bd Sosa
; . Early Evening dux,02 (5pm to 7pm)
i Late Evening 3oz Sods (7pm to 9pm)
Early Night 023ytawoe (opm to 12am)
Late Night 3a 083, (12am to 5am)
Don't Know/Can't Say Readu/sevoana

SRT YT SICT AWD vcs cas vastne a wnsvsetatnivovestonssvereossses 3

EEOE PEW GIAETIGO. civcestsxcii
crsseysvevcsssusssonsrseseraese 4
BEAD YTB EMMCTIDD. ssecesctinsescaserssusaseneccssrinensusert 5
BOBO VIE SAETIW., ..ccccorssvascvsvsncceseqsivesosnsreovennes 6

Playgrounds oud how CORNER ERETHER ERE NERENT ESET ER EE 9

Hospitals €97&, ........-sseesesssessssseessseeseresscrensseers 10

Police Stations GeOea Gal ..........ccceereeeseeenreee A
e Gato Y....c.ssssssvsoreeseeeeren 12
of worship
Plac
iors me pre |
256 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

Did the victim know the perpetrator? «== | Y@S BCD on. sesesesesenssnsnsnsreranensnsreranensnanensransnnnens
Bos AON vsoad avAdaw rads?
Don't Know/Can't SAY conexcsnsacscocsovansecarnesnstences 99
Radsu/sevoenia
If 21F yes, was it: (Do not prompt) Member of Family @6V00 BOA, ....0.-00-0e00-+
ftwugd web aoc8d ech aivoch? (HUES |Friend AfeloS necvnnennsrnnsnnnannn ;
a1.aaf
BVEAGseB vdde wgHsO) Colleague or co-worker BBoede,cA acta inidiceonle 3
Member of the locality 3d¢8d Jae ............ 4
ACQUAINANCE ........ssessensncrsnrnenenersseorornsnenensosseee 5
DO2aQWVOIID
Member of your caste group/jati/biradari..... 6
Ad, sadavaw
Member of your religion .........--s-e-ssccereeeerrenens 7
NY, ODFIID
Stranger BOSD asic sssessssxrcapveasnascaesersyeovcoweos 8
Group of unknown people ra@3uc rbog....... 9
Teacher (0G a2, QDOD «........-resseesssnenennernesenenene 10
Co-worker 80S SOSMGD ....eccscseseverseseennsenne 11
Doctor-Nurse G26 O'-RADE .....-sesseersesneeneeneaneens 12
As eonerada
POLICE URS sacitnncee ticcasstar ucitainidipies 13
Neighbours in locality Sdeedab3o............. 14
Family member Qt2000 BBA,........1.eosessvereens 15
Others: (Please Specify a3d(QOraaeA
a) RE en a I Re

If 21F is yes, what was the gender of

perpetrator
21 aS R Usd HBodd wand avAdad Son
airman?

If 21F is yes, please specify the number of | One 2:0).Q).........ccccecsscssesesssescecssessessnceceeseesesenees

perpetra tors
21 ag A wugd HPdhodd vam asAdawm COON EEE EEE E EEE TERRE E EERE TEETER TREE TEER TREE EERE EERE RE Ee

Pe emma, ica alt et ye be ms age mma

More than three BDOAT
Bed, ........c-seeeneees
Don't Know/Can't Say te3u/sevurriad.......
Did you report the incident to the police: us
wrt dea PodedOor BdH ArvAHoo?

If 21J is No, Why did you not report? (Do not Fear of retaliation retaliation 3@A Sem
prompt) SOSBAWTWow Yab
218 ay sodd 58 BdB ancdu?(svgd
BeVAAGweA wade wvBOHO) Lack of evidence MagdbdOu Ca
Didn't know where to report
a0 308 anmaymd rede
Didn't know helpline number
BwHeabarecd Sow radu

|_Family matters neec

KCVS Questionnaire.
Doc 32
5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National... 257

Hewows Adah ASHaARGeedm

This is better settled outside the police 11
station@edea’ Oviab Boor Vs Gr wvsad
Bad past experience with reporting to 12
Police
Beder¥ 1 SIH aAwAsd 3 wadeiaod
Others: (Please specify) a8d(0Ora aah 98 |
Bee)
Don't Know/Can't Say he3u/eevuarich ‘a

If 21J is Yes, why did you report? FOr INSUFEDLE TORGOIS asicennscsracneanennatensacarassenne 2
218 ff oudo Sond od 30d aw8H6? Aad sadarnert
Crime should be reported .........:.:.:0:0esc0eseseee- 3
vdoagrivay, Sobaredesed
Tt WAS @ SETIOUS CVENE .............c-recrseesencensrneranees 4
ach noves Jaob
Wanted offender to be caught and punished. 5
vsoaHobmy, KHAcd 38 Neaeed
To stop it from happening again/to
OR IARI Sones sees csncn-seqnent iesgttetnarravnar 6
hs ach eridog NONw/ Saoab Sdabew
Others: (Please specify) === == _..... 98
QBO(YOra
aah Se?)
If 21J is Yes, how did you report the above AAC AN AREA EERE E ORES ER Rw ERE AEE ERE EROS EREERERE EEE EE ERE REESE

crime? ao 1008, sdainBd

213 A wad w*dodd sert 3dH awGBHO? Called other police helpline...............cse00c0 2
Seder Smroodancint sdandad
Went to police station ..0..........ccccecsscsesessesesesnees 3
Ander rent daed
Approached a Police Officer...............:cscesee 4
Bodea¥ sdedory ved avad
Ns Fe IORI ees rarccpcaynnervesvivesons ventviasteos99
Sadv
If 21J is Yes, what did the police do upon File a complaint Ged aawd2adm
hearing your complaint?
Register an FIR ag © Bof GaDd2ABa
(Don't read out the options. Mark multiple
options as respondents replies) Despatched a PCR vehicle
218 Sdodd Jad, daw se? Goder ord 3d 60 mB BWhABD
areBcich? ( wal, tdesel, wadeah,Avay Took
any injured persons for medical
assistance Mdrteos a.gabmy 3,G,deab
msdmnd Bew3gos ro3.2)
Bag ftsdcleald
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED BY THE Asked you to go to another police station
RESPONDENT sed Sader’ Ovtirt Zaervaos AS
mudderdd seOdayriv
abg abayrtd #280. Bevam
Cameto the spot andinvestigated
Bvs, woe BAZaAnWaAdd
ked you not to file the complaint 7
Baw mandxenddo sevam
m

FORD neeaiscrinnntviiametyivivamncerarcenntvenaedin %
NO QU verveesssescvensecssrsvernenevessenvecsssevecssvesoereersseveee
258 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

BtwowG Aaob ddHaraendcy

This is better settled outside the police
stationgedea Cato Boor ae.or wvsad
Bad past experience with reporting to
Police
Badeat i 30H anBs st; oarjasod
Others: (Please specify) a&d(NOraaeA
Be?)
Don’t Know/Can't Say Redv/eevoerich al

If 21J is Yes, why did you report? For INSUPANCE FEASONS ........-s<n-r-neneneerneneveneerseee
21% Mf wusd edodd o8 308 anwBH6? Aah sonnet
Crime should be reported ........-::-c-sse-nsernresnene 3
vsoaGniva ScdaAncdea
Tt-WOS Bi DOTIOTIE CUEING ococccsonscnccercasacnscbianiacercoree 4
am nodes Daab
Wanted offender to be caught and punished. 5
esoeBobay &Ach 8g dedesew
To stop it from happening again/to
RRC IOI CRI esse ceie ooiiravincvceeiens 6
hs ad sndos NOAw/ Aweab ddabw
Others: (Please specify) = = si... 98
aso(NOra
ae See)
If 21J is Yes, how did you report the above —s | Called 100.0... es cesssessesseneessresennseessenrenaseenenennenees
crime?
218 Novus S&dodd seri Joh AwBHH? Called other police helpline... 2
Sader Seroaderarnt sdandid
Went to police station ............:scesersscnesereacens 3
Snder¥ Oost Baed
Approached a Police OffiCeP .............c.0ccsscse0ee0s 4
Bader sHevday ses avad
HARP O ERR E RETR EEE H AEE SERE TREO EE REE R EOE R EE

If 21J is Yes, what did the police do upon

hearing your complaint?
(Don’t read out the options. Mark multiple
options as respondents replies)
[Reyiteran FRaveer omer |?
Despatched a PCR vehicle
213 Sdodd Aad, dow se? Paden’ ard dk BO MRA BWhAGA
AnAded? ( sob, Loved, vaso wah Took any injured persons for medical
msdmd SewSgor rows) assistance Mradrteoe a.
gabay 3,0,dead
88sNhsdrlealad
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED BY THE Asked you to go to another police station
RESPONDENT ded Gooden overt Baervsos sant
sdmrdw SeOdaynv as Mayrid Hed8.
Came to the spot andinvestigated
Bvs, wom BdsanAowd

police?
(Don't read out the options. Mark multiple
options as respondents replies)
5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National... 259

212 Movs Sdodd +

3eden Sricbdeod They registered the complaint quickly | 3
S200 wr] Navrt of SS ad ? Geday veri caw0ddm

( Sob, Loved, wad sol rival scusdord They explained the action that they will
+ p=
take wach Srichdews
WS Bada
Babs wrtwv} |
StwSgos row32)
' dd8adm
CIRCLE IF RESPONDENT MENTIONS _| They solved the problem 5
aie |

CUSIOID Seedayiv abs aayrid Hdd. Baba, S6Hed AWASw

al
Other: (please specify) add(QOra aa | 8
Bey)

If 210 is No, Why are you not satisfied by the They were not interested
police? vdOn exddbdddu
(Don't read out the options. Mark multiple
options as respondents replies) They were rude and impolite
21% Af ovsd BL comadd dedear’ VSM woenA SIF Lom, Tv Seedou
Srichdeod Bazbd wr} Navi a8 33 av ? pcos
did not do enough vesedad, a
( sobivah Loved, omcoh vay ousdaed
Bew3Igos rowm3e)

CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED BY THE They tried to persuade me not to register

RESPONDENT an FIR ag © 8 Candas AAT
MBI SeOdayriv as adayrid add. wd tow Zoabs arAdd
They took a long time to register my FIR
BA, ag © GO’ aadAw osY B20
Srimroena
They told me to go away from the police
station Sedea® Ooasidbos Hoervaos
weVvasm
They put me at fault
x hese SQ, Soeddm
They wanted a bribe woe se9aa)

fee
They physically assaulted me
SAK Bsa Sd arvBdad
They verbally abused me SXAv, 3,

a
They didn't find or apprehend the
offender
esoeBabay amdsdvu/ BAAS dnvde
They didn't recover my property (goods) ae
aa, 62 (Bdw) Habddodow
hey didn't keep me properly informed
AAR BOainA anrwds deddv

03M wav Baa wosd

Other: (please specify) a&d(Nira
aah

Once OID, prencvornvrvoesvovvneveneresavsensnereneeveswrrvoneresens 1

Oo | Pe 2
| eo, |
More than thrice
in the last year .......... —" |
8V0 woth dara chew wBAow ately
260 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

Sena aseaa Gudsabd tavab Late Morning rf (10 am to 12pM) ......-0-0-00

Early Afternoon (12pm to 3PM) ......0.-000-0ene0» 3
Late Afternoon (3PM tO 5PM)....:.cn-resesneerereenes 4
HHe,£S Sos
Early Evening Sv%,0% (5pm to 7pm).....-..-»-+- 5
Late Evening Xoz SoSc (7pm to 9pm)......... 6
Early Night 083," awoe (gpm to 12am)........ 7
Late Night SG Oa&, (12aM to 5AM) «0-0-0000
Don't Know/Can't Say Madeu/eevuane ......
Please tell me the name, age, gender of the
member of the family gone missing in past one
year
BY word darad s¥abaees Aad, as Jad,S
BAD ,Sadr, Oo 304
Male OSD 5 rosin nadccea ed ee aenee
Ferniale WOOF GAD sasiicisins sii nxovins oanjconnomiaeiniionsearibesstin 2
OER IS is since nsescinawrohasecesnar
vente cece 3
Can ESay MID cacicnsisccssedinsientoice
ee
eR bg) epee re
61D YES, BRET ricsersstaceectinseonscnsdsssocitamisinebionios 2
12-185 YES BOMRET OO adisaevenrsemeseannin shenersiensiesveussony 3
TOPOS TS coe TO sw secsnescrrascsesaiencamnbeeregemivones 4
DR SACY O08 SOMIOT TRS a prcscmmeymcvomemmseencatnerins 5
QO=BO VIG CSTD, 6 vicrsanviienmneeiovnnneonenrns 6
Prrrrttrritirtiirti

Godderiw Dw ede, ded

GBT SEG ocsrcr scr crsccewrncincaninieataiaaiiiinan
pester 99
Bevuena
Relationship to the respondent

Did the family receive any calls for extortion

(kidnapping)
wd Bnse/ (vssdnd,)
omodda sdriw

If 22Eyes,
did the family
pay the extortion
229 A wudd Bch domadd Hivow Be MAGe?

At a relative's house Sow BA .........ccceeeveee 3

At work place BUBB BV ...escsccsssnserecessnneressee
On the street QeB0DQ ........sccscsessnseereeeeresennsees 5
5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National... 261

CS ae 9

} UCeeeReeeenenTeTOneeHONTeHESeOHEEHeSeESEHTENSSETOHHETEHS 10
 262 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

Don't Know/Can't Say

nedsv/eevoeia
Did you report the incident to the police:
PUS ont dey FedevsSri SdH arBHoo?
No
Q4
If 22K is No, Why did you not report? (Do not Fear of retaliation retaliation 3HA Sec
prompt) Se62dawsadow eab
228 av aodd 308 od aradu?
Lack of evidence T2gdbdOu
Didn’t know where to report
20 308 aAnmamd nesddv
Didn't know helpline number
BaHreabarn Sono rosd0u
Did not want to get stuck in police/court
matters Gedeat’/ dacewe SFSadsri
26,Erdeow
Qo addodv
Uncomfortable to go to Police Station
Sade ovr Keervaa vhsarw
Did not think the police would be able to
do anything about the case
GNdewid anodde arwsed vAvov
Did not think police would entertain the
case
Bdeaa Besa) Sicddow sd wdsov
Police is unfair GeOesw Ae,cbBddy
Family matters need not be reported
Henous Jaa SdHarcerdad
This is better settled outside the police
station
Sader overt oor aF,.Gr evsad
Bad past experience with reporting to
Police
Boden i 30H and sy variadd
Others: (Please specify)
QBG(NHra aa See)
Don't Know/Can’t Say Readu/sevoanad
If22K isYes, why did you report? To recover property/person
22 8h usd @dodd o8 ddh awBAb? 68/a,dabry Hodddadw
For insurance reasons
Aad dane
Crime should be reported

Wanted offender to be caught and punished . 5

eBoeKAcd abaydg deciesed
To stop it from happening again/to
get help/others
hs Veh SNGos YAw/ SHeabd Scdadw
Others: (Please specify)
QId(NHra aah Seo)
If 22K is Yes, how did rt the above Called 100
crime? pro rae
228 Mtwugd aPchodd ater ddd anAAO?

If 22K is Yes, wh
your complaint

KCVS Questionnaire.Doc 37
wn The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National... 263

(Don't read out the options. Mark multiple Despatched a PCR vehicle 3 |
options as respondents replies) 32 6Of a8 SWbSGD
228 1 uso B*doGd dab, dem sed gedeat
Took any injured persons for medical
aad arwBdcd? ( sah, Lcesed, warsab, ivah, assistance Medrteod F,dabah, 3,5,deab
WUBIOVIW SewW3gos roam32) udat sdcleaya
Asked you to go to another police station
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED BY THE ded Godex ovsri Saervdogs SAK
RESPONDENT
VSI SeOdayriv hs aarrtd wd0. Sevow
Came to the spot and investigated
Qvs, noch INaanrBdw
Asked you not to file the complaint
Baw mandaenddom sevaw
If missing person, filed a missing person
report 6Vwbeeeday F.gaindd
SYA BSA cawdacdm

Other: (Please specify) add(WOraaeA

wee)

If 21K is Yes, Were you satisfied by the action

of the police?
228 A ousd Pods eden’ Srichbdood
Badd wrt Nadrt 33 actabe?
If 22P is Yes, Why are you satisfied by the iene
listened to the complaint dew Be
police?
(Don't read out the options. Mark multiple
options as respondents replies) onregistered the complaint accurately
223 A wuss w*dodd Zeder’ Sichdvod sada ROairaA Gew oaadacad
ort Nabi o8 34 acd ? They registered the complaint quickly
Gadar, veri mawd2dm
( sab, Lode, wabsobl ivan cusdaed
They explained the action that they will
BewSQos w32) take vd Sicddaws 8av0 orf dS6i0dc
CIRCLE IF RESPONDENT MENTIONS They solved the problem
musdmadd seddariv abs abayrid 080. Bs, SdHod AWBdw
Other: (please specify) a8d (MAraaaA ps
wee)
If 22P is No, Why are you not satisfied by the They were not interested od6rt
police? (Don’t read out the options. Mark exddbddu
multiple options as respondents replies)
223 Nhousd au comead §9sedent They were rude and impolite
Bad wrt dabrt a8 Fd av ?
They did not do enough wesada andde |3 |
They refused
to file the FIR
ae 0 UO DaDdOAw HoswdA0dm
They tried to persuade me not to register
an FIR 0& © BO Candas AAN ud Aw

They took a long time to register my FIR

a
a
264 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

They didn't keep me properly informed

SAN HHairaA arabs edou
They were slow to arrive
v3 nav Sdaeh vod
Other: (please specify) asd(NOra aah
wee?)
Was any person arrested due to the incident?
Puddoos ange dsab, GAAS areBdoo?

How serious was the incident to you and your Very serious WBY¥ NoHed
household? Naor Dw aad, HAN & Gad oa), Somewhat serious asa Noded
Nohedaeabay? Not very serious BY Noheddu
Not serious at all Nodedae ov
Don't know radu

How many times has the incident occurred in

the last one year? 8V0 word darGO oa) a8
& Bus Adds?
More than thrice in the last year
8¥0 wom) SarGO aoc eeOAog wei)
Time of occurrence of the most recent Early Morning (5am to 10am) awoeend
incident
3eoa Qed Gusob Sadob
Late Morning (10 am to 12pm) ery
Early Afternoon 23,88, avozs(12pm to 3pm)
Late Afternoon 2,88, SoSd(3pm to 5pm)
Early Evening ava
02 (5pm to 7pm)
Late Evening Soe So3s (7pm to 9pm)
Early Night 083," awoe (gpm to 12am)
Late Night 3c 083, (12am to 5am)
Don't Know/Can’'t Say Radu/sevuariad

Where did the incident occur:

Friends house 3t&30 abs
Work Place 8uaagv

Public transport AedFaos VA

Commercial place
(Malls, Theatre, Restaurant)
Teck, Gv(arv*, Habewo’, Koecier*)
Neighbourhood area Sdaed 3ctes
Educational Institutes Oa, BoAnw
Playgrounds wud aoa

(Ora ah wed)
Don't Know/Can't Say Madu/severriad 99
Q23 is (b
the followin
3,23(0) 63,8,
odd ,w ua,wan &
AwoHAGiVo ainaad mdr
 5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National... 265

asd (NOra aah See?)

Don't Know/Can't Say Radu/sevuanad
Did you report the incident to the police?
Bed wrt Dea SadedOr JB arvABoo?

If 23E is No, Why did you not report? Fear of retaliation retaliation 3@A Se
(Do not prompt)
23 @ rt wusd av oomaIdd 35H a8 Se6LdawTadow gab
areddw? Lack of evidence xagdbdou
. Didn’t know where to report
a0 308 ana@ayad radu
Didn't know helpline number Saeabatec} Nowo*
rade
Did not want to get stuck in police/court matters
Sadent/ Gaceve dedGr
A 28,moddowaya
BAIS
Uncomfortable to go to Police Station
Sader¥ Cast Soervay vasa
Did not think the police would be able to do
anything about the case GededW oavddn
i
anadaed eAsou
|
H
Did not think police would entertain the case
Gdedo seta Sichdowsed vdsou
Police is unfair Zedesem Av, abaddy
:J
Family matters need not be reported
Bewond Idob SdAanaendad
This is better settled outside the police station
Sader Tatiad Ban aB,Br wus
Bad past experience with reporting to Police
Bader f 30H ana 63 vadsdad
Others: (Please specify)
= ==
23d(JBra
ooh seo)
Don’t Know/Can’t Say Radu/aevoerich
If 23E is Yes, why did you report? FOO E SARA EROS EAR eRe E REO E HEN H ERNE RT ONHR ERE ED

Crime should be reported edoagnivay SdHaAnaeded. 3

It was a Serious event QD Noed ABW .........cecccsceceeenenes 4
Wanted offender to be caught and punished................... 5
edoababa, bAcd bg deased
Tostopit from happening again/to get help/others ..... 6
abs ech eridos NOxw/ Saab Sdobw
Others: (Please specify) a8d(QBra aah

AOE EN EERE EEE EEE FEDER NRE NEHER HONOR ER E®

is Bp ceeteeli chet titsextn ah eciost tisih vin pasitentayvihtionyreFereveneyssteiietenes 2

Went to police station Zedeak
atin BACT... 3
Approached a Police Officer Sodea¥ edeaory Yeu Ards
 266 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

oA
wmechnva wvsdard sewSdoe eed Soden’ Oost Boervaogs SAN sevam
row) Came to the spot and investigated
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED BY vs, wor BIsanBdm
THE RESPONDENT Asked you not to file the complaint
MBI Seodayriv Hs Harid Baw mvadxeeddom sevaw
wes8. If missing person, filed a missing person report
BVHBacdg) 3,$ainad, 3,3 svabaes JdH
lary aysales)

rr
Did not do anything OAXe AwBou
Other: (Please specify) asd(QOra
aah Se?)

If 23E is Yes, Were you satisfied by the

action of the police? 23 2 @doadd Aevden®
Simos 82GB wr} Nari 3d adobe?

If 23J is Yes, Why are you satisfied by the They listened to the complaint Gem se9am
aR
police? The istered the complaint accurate]
(Don’t read out the options. Mark multiple Abra P aed
options as respondents replies) MaireA dew cewdadea
23% Sdodd Aedea’ Simkoos sand They registered the complaint quickly

They explained the action that they will take

— RR iil WEORG | waded sricddows ads uf Ad0Adied
at / They solved the problem Saba, dOa00
CIRCLE IF RESPONDENT MENTIONS| &80
MBI BSeldayiv ahs arid se80. | Other: (please specify) a8d(MBra
aA see)

eto mt
If 23J is No, Why are you not satisfied by They were not interested od6ri sasdbddu
the police?
; ‘ ; They were rude and impolite

sand ef to
238 Revsd av aodd dadext They did not do enough avec sdemoday

sod eno 8)
(Soknvay Kdeded, osdaobh vay, They refused to file the FIR

CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED BY THE Th ey tried to persuade me not to register an

RESPONDENT FIR oF © 6O® GeDdADoS AAT wdasw
WBIEIIH SeOdagynv ws Ward wod6. Babs anvasa®d
They took a long time to register my FIR
AA, Og © UO Dds OS Bw
Srimseovd
They told me to go away from the police
station Zedea¥ Oadoos Heerdsos Sena
They put me at fault 8% ahede 3a, soda
They wanted a bribe woes 8e9add
They physically assaulted me San B,b8aeA
&Y anAsd
They verbally abused me Sq e3,ab
They didn't find or apprehend the offender
esorabay Hed80u/ BIAS andy
They didn't recover my property (goods)
AX Gd (BSH) Hadsdosde
They didn't keep me properly informed
AATF DOairaA arbs Meadow
They were slow to arrive eS wsv Baa
wond
Oth er:
we )
Yes BOD “ ...cccce eutrlveviimicilennniaredidivinsiatetiecenit
. aves i

KCVS Questionnaire.Doc 41
5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National... 267

23N | How serious was the incident to you and Very serious BBY Noged.........
your household?
Aebrt ade dad, dA & Gud oa), Somewhat serious araoaA Nohed 2

Nodedarchbay Not very serious ev Nodedsu 3 |

Not serious at all MoQede 00 00.0... ecco .
Wore NN I oa ionerscansnscarsoiasninenonsnnxenncnan: .99

24A | How many times has the incident occurred in

the last one year?
BV wom) dardO od) 20d Gud Sdddw?

More than thrice in the last year

BWC womd darGO aed wedAos wed)
Time of occurrence of the most recent Early Morning Swoeses (5am to 10am)
incident P
Seon aes Gusad sadad Late Morning rj (10 am to 12pm)
Early Afternoon (12pm to 3pm)
HGr7,BS, avo
Late Afternoon (3pm to 5pm)
HBS Joss
Early Evening &nq,02(5pm to 7pm)
Late Evening oz Sod (7pm to 9pm)
Early Night 0a3,r¥ Qvoe (gpm to 12am)
Late Night 3c 093, (12am to 5am)
Don’t Know/Can't Say
nadu/sevueariad

the following ways? Deprivation of essential services

PuAdoos & airapde SeSabO Iavrt Shea) | such as rations, water, medicines
escbve? dean’, end, Badrivosa ong,

Babriw dedsaadaad.
Forced not go to work
Buds, BoenOdw wus,
Forced to participate in the
bandh/hartal/agitation/unrest/viol
ence wotk/ BOBev/ Haeow3GO
wahaireniew 23a
Suffered physical harm
3,8 Gee) wvoeradde
Suffered damage to property
62 wen wvoenddw
Other problems 230d Sada Nw
Did the police take any action to restore
normalcy in the area?

More than 2 weeks but less than a month

A month 80 ad4,08 Bed) ud Son? Aos 8B
eeereeeeeereeree UCR C TR RRR RRR
ETSTREE ERR RETR R THRE HE HeRT HEH ETER THT R EET 6

2-6 months 2-6 Sonw

More than 6 months but less than a year .......8
A year2-6 Son@Aos Ba, wid dardo8 8Bch) 9
Morethanayear ddrdod sz) 10
Don’t Know/Can't SayhaSu/aevernc 99
LO aa eae piano
NO GE vescssvsesssscsorsursscsssersensssrnsssersnssrsnssrersssests
268 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

prompt)
240% Rwsd av codd db o8 areddu?

Did not want to get stuck in police/court

matters Gedeat/ acer dd Soddawaye
aadd0u

Did not think the police would be able to do

anything about the case
Gadedw ormvadn anmsed vaaydvy
Did not think police would entertain the case
Bndesm sevay, Sichdow sd enwmwOy

Family matters need not be reported

Bevo Adah AdHaAnaenda
This is better settled outside the police station Pe
Boden oasri Boor vB.Gr svsad
Bad past experience with reporting to Police
Boden fh BH aod se3 emdyadd

If 24F is Yes, why did you report?

2408 Sdodd os" 30H anBHS?
For insurance reasons Dad SoGeanOrt ......ceceeceeoes
Crime should be reported esoadrivay,
cA OE RENEE REE E TREE EERE ER EERE HERE HES EN EH ERE SENSES SEER MERE RET OR

It was a serious event @a) Nosed AOD...

Wanted offender to be caught and punished............ 5
edoredabay KAcd 58 deaesed
To stop it from happening again/to get help.......... 6
hs ad aridos AOAw/ SHoab Stabe
Others: (Please specify) e8d(NOraaeA See)
FREER ERR TREE EE REREEE TEETER RE STEERER NETHER EH HR ERE R ER EE Oe

If 24F is Yes, how did you report the abo Called 100 Mo 1008, BOAIRAT .....-.coeeccsnsescnenenens
crime?
Called other police helpline .............ccccceseeeeeenees 2
2408 Novus Sdodd vsioegds wrt wert
Sodea¥ Suk Teak sdanacd
Pulelakairialaleyg
Went to police station Seder overt Reed ......... 3
Approached a Police OfffCP..........-.....:cccsseeeseeeseeeene 4
Boder¥ sdeadday seo avid
SPREE EERE RESET SEE EEE REET OES ERER NOOR ES

If 24F is Yes, what did the police do upon File a complaint

Gam mawndacdad
yas
(Don't read out theoptions. Mark multiple
hearing your complaint?

a
options as respondents replies) Despatched
a PCR vehicle 32 eof aaes
24 0% Nevsd adocd dad, daw seo BwWhdadad
Sndeat oad eiraAcded?
(wal, tesa, any injured persons for medilical
LMGa vay SBhoha Sewagod assistance
rvc3.2) matiteots a,gabat, a,c}Seat e8Sahntdcdctoaiyeh lt
ked you to go to nother police station
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED BY THE ded qader oatirt Koervaos SAN sedawd
RESPONDENT Cameto the spot and investigated
msdenddh BeOdairiv
ada adayrtd add.
5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National... 269

nm cndacd r
| | Did not do anything axe arwcdu = ;‘T 9 J
Other: (Please specify) aSd(QOra
aah Se?) 98 |
24K | If 24F is Yes, Were you satisfied by the action | Yes BC) .........ccccccceccsssssseseacesvssesescesesreseneseenenees l If NO, 1
ofthe police?
24ogvgsWelocd MeO |ny ge)’ nn
mabed wr dabrt 3,3 ucdabe?
2 | skipto
a4M
24L | If 24K is Yes, Why are you satisfied by the They listened to the complaint dew seam 1 | SKIP
police? TO
(Don't read out the options. Mark multiple They registered the complaint accurately 24N
options as respondents replies) BOairA dew caaddiam
248 Mevgo s*dodd gedea* Sricvdood | They registered the complaint quickly
orf debt a8 33 act ?
Babs cada vert cawd2ced
( Soh, Lcd, nadsabrivay cusdmed They explained the action that they will take
aewbScios rob3s) BS at Vd Sricddaws 82d orf IA6L0w
. They solved the problem ads, 36aHe0 ArBdm) 5 |
CIRCLE IF RESPONDENT MENTIONS | other: (please specify) ad (AAFaaaA we)
MsdmIem Seddayniv as arid Hdd.

If 24K is No, Why are you not satisfied by the |They were not interested #d6rt exsdbddu ea |
ae out the options. Mark multiple bierbh ey
de and —. ce Ee
options as respondents replies) » Pam, OY .
248 housed wv aomdd dedeat They did not do enough and veda arddy | 3 |
Srichdoos
sada ex} Aabrt o8 3,4 av ? They refused tofile the FIR ad
(eahivah, LaeteS, nabecbrivay, evaded |OF 2 SO cendsien AosdoLad
They tried to persuade me not to register an FIR
ay 0 EO Dandados
AA wd Bw Dabs,
anaam®
They took a long time to register my FIR
aa ag © EO MeDdAw VS Bo SAEooda
They told me to go away from the police station |7
Badert oaidbos eervaogs SevaGw
They put me at fault 3x hese 3A, Sd
They wanted a bribe voz Se9am
They physically assaulted me
AN D,b8aa ad avBdm
They verbally abused me AgAy 3d
They didn't find or apprehend the offender
udoaabay abs0u/ SAAS ainwadu
They didn't recover my property (goods)
aA,Ud(ade) Ud.80Y
They didn't keep me properly informed
SAN HOairaA arb3 Jeddu
They were slow to arrive
:edd wsBdarh wodd ele]
5]
S|
a]
|
sel
Was any person arrested due to the incident? | Yes BCD .........ccssssssessssueessnnescsnnrerssnensesnnnessnny
Gos aa
0 | ct ahd obo es eee ct oe Si
How serious was the incident to you and your

dirt hab dab, Art & gua oa)

Rodedaacba?

How many
in the last
one
pe 3
More than thricein the last year .......0....cc-:0seseenenrevens 4
8VG word dardO cued eaOAos wed)
Early Morning awoesard (5am to 10am) ........0..--r0--00
Late Morning rf (10 am to12pm) ........00seeeeereeeere 2
Early Afternoon 293,88, avoes (12pmto3pm) ........3
 270 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

atenerassnssonressenesensers
Late Evening Soe SoS (7pM tO OPM) ......nereenerereeseeeeO
Early Night caSrawoes(gpmto 12am)........-rseesneerneee7 '
Late Night 8c v8, (12am to5am) ee ’
Don't Know/Can't
Say Aa@80/BVOANTD .cccoeeeeee9D

eee avril inte

iy
—
ae
eed
fal
5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National... 271

| 25C Why do you think you were denied access Feud with influential persons inthe community | =
to these? (Don't read out the options. BawavahsG Sacre Fsriv kos sve
Mark multiple options as respondents
replies) Caste ead eee as
adend, Jab od vdeesdu OAS? ( Religion Gave 3
sah, .cdved, wnarcah iva, susdoed Gender Sor T 4 |
Sew3gos romd32) Mother-tongue angyed 5
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED BY THE Native State 203d 082, 6
RESPONDENT
MBITIWA SeOdayriv abs aayrid 5230. Sexual orientation J,oAS 33,3
Skin colour 2, og
Disability 2803
Other reasons: aéd sadnnw

Did you report the incident to the police rrrrerrrrir itr t tte re

Bess wrt Nez SodeTDOr BIO arwBOoo?

25E If 25D is No, Why did you not report? (Do Fear of retaliation 3A Hew 3e62 daw sadow
not prompt)
Bob
25 8 n wud av cooadd 30d os
Lack of evidence Magdbdou
ardou?
Didn't know where to report
(usd ass eB wade Bevo)
20 308 anmayed raddou
Didn't know helpline number
BE Uyak Sour’ hegddu
Did not want to get stuck in police/court matters
Bader¥/ Bacevr FBSA 28,soddowjaa
aadd0u
Uncomfortable to go to Police Station
Bode overt Boervay vhsmAa
Did not think the police would be able to do
anything about the case Aedesm anedde
arecbaad vdsOU
Did not think police would entertain the case
Paden seday Siddow sed vdsou
Police is unfair Sededw we,abaddu
Family matters need not be reported
Bevow Daa AdHaAncendad
ee
eer
This is better settled outside the police station
Bader¥ oadad Kadri ws.Gr wvsad
Bad past experience with reporting to Police
Sader fh ddd anAd sy earyadd
Others: (Please specify) a8d(NOra
aeA
|
Don't Know/Can’t Say ra3y/eevoori
If 25D is Yes, why did you report?
25 Bf wusd Bch aomadd 3dO Od
For insurance
reasons da) sadnriert
Crime should be reported 3
vamdgnva, dcHardved
It was a serious event aa) Noded Daab 4
Wanted offender to be caught and punished 5
esoshabah, bch bg dedesea
To stop itfrom happening again/to get help 7
hs ach aridos NOAw/ SHead Sdabw
Others: (Please specify) eed(#882)
272 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

above crime? Called other police helpline ...............s1:csessssseneneenrnrneeees

258 Roved edodd set ach Bpder¥ Serodoodn sdanid
a888? Went to police station Gadear¥ Oat BG ..........eo 3
Approached a Police Offi CEP ..........-.-+-s:0+ssssieesesiennneenneens -
Badea¥ sdeaoar, Bees anid
Don't Remember SABV........-.:sessessesneenssneneeneenensanennennnes
If 25D is Yes, what did the police do upon File a complaint Gem aandadm
hearing your complaint?
(Don't read out the options. Mark multiple
options as respondents replies)
258 Novsd wdodd Aad, dow bee
Bode oad ABS? ( sah, ceed, Took any injured persons for medical assistance
wmsah iva, wusdord SewSgos meartoos F.sabmy 3,G,deob sssrfsdcloahc
rowb3d) Asked you to go to another police station
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED BY THE ded Bader’ rast Beervdos ASN SeVSm
RESPONDENT Came to the spot and investigated
msdmadh seddayriv abs aerid Bv8, word BafainBoia
wo88. Asked you not to file the complaint
RaW mowOnernddom sevam

ero
BYES
eamesccm
omc
Didnotdoanything
aeedoy | 8
|S
F.saindd, sVobeeed SdH maadaca

If 25D is Yes, Were you satisfied by the Yes So) Pererrrrrrrtr titi t itt tr tier

action of the police

258 Revsdsrdosdd eden >25K
SNs00B 8B wr} Vari 3,3 acdabe
2 If 251 is Yes, Why are you satisfied by the They listened to the complaint SKIP
police Baw sevam TO
(Don’t read out the options. Mark multiple
They registered the complaint accurately 25L
options as respondents replies)
DbairoA Gow madaca
250Nnwsd sdodd daden® They registered the complaint quickly
Srichdoos 8ahG
wr Aad o8 3,4 ad ? Baday ver mawddaam
They explained the action that they will take
( oh, VHB, nadsal iva, cugdoed
038d Eiddows Badd orf IS8h5m
Bew3gos row32)
They solved the problem ®ada, Bda00 ABS
CIRCLE IF RESPONDENT Other: (please specify) e8d(VOraaeA see)
MENTIONS
MBH SeOdaynv hs arid Hdd.
If 251 is No, Why are you not satisfied by | They were not interested Or esddbdOu Pw
the police? ; :
(Don’t: read out the options,
, ,
Mark multiple They
vad were rude and impolite
wounAdPaa,dod dorddd
options as respondents replies)
250A wusd ay codd qadent They did not do enough verada, aradu La |
SNchAn0d Badd wr} Nadrt OF 3d
av ? They refused
to file the FIR
( Solyrival
tdeseB, wadesod, vay as OD UO awOTW AoIwbAdd
MBdOId SewAgos rowd3 They tried to persuade
me not to register
an FIR
eS ee 7 ag © WO amdaidos AAA wdww sada
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED BYTHE anda
RESPO They took a long time to register my FIR
MBIA
SeOdayiy ay aid md. | Sq as o wok mandaw vsv ww Tricddeosd
They told me to go away from the police station 7
Sdea¥ Ovasdbos Koervaos SeOadm a
They put me at fault Sq adeceSQ, soda £5
They wanted a bribe vow Seed) ez
7 physically aulted me
btn we areBcid it
They verbally
abused me AAA vs,Ged LE
ey didn't find or apprehend the offende:

They didn't recover

my property (good
Sq Od (BIH) Hadddadou EF
KCVS Questionnaire.Doc 47
 5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National... 273

BAN DOaivaA arabs XBOL 7 |

: 4
They were slow to arrive 63M wav SGoaA wodm | 15
Other: (please specify) @3d(JOra
aeA wee) «| 08 |

Was any person arrested due to the a |

incident?
SuAtdbod airaapde d,3abay IAIN atti ctasnasaandcinbssnbocannne

aimnadoe?
How serious was the incident to you and Very Serious WOU MODES... ecccnsesescecersnenseerersees
your household?
Sabrt aba dab, abatrt & gust oat, Somewhat serious AAT Noes .......
oo cccscccoeeeee 2
nodedarecbab? Not very serious WBY MOMEGBY «0... scceesesceseeereenes 3
Not serious at all Mog ede 00 ........ecncceroscseesessesneenes 4

I NE I ccc srnssncenensesccasysnnsmnenaresirsanenne

ee eS ee. a ene
occurred in the last one year? .
avd Sebi com ea eehes | TP ONO ere
Aetdba? a a aI a i a

More than thrice in the last year ........-.-cccssssssesesseceseeenese 4

8G word SarGO chow e6Aos Bed)
Time of occurrence of the most recent Early Morning Bwoesed (5am to 10am) ........0sceseeeeeeeeee
incident: See adedn Fudsab Tadob Late Morning rf (10 am to 12PM) .........ersessserneeneernennes 2
Early Afternoon (12pm to 3PpM)..........sccesesesesrsenerentersene 3
HG, 8,awozs
Late Afternoon (3pm to 5PM) .......cs:sssecsecesesenesesesnsnseseenees 4
DHSIz,BS Sosd
Early Evening 203,02 (Spm to 7PM) .......ssesssessesneensees 5
Late Evening Zoe NoBo (7pM to OPM) ..........seeecerereneeees 6
Early Night oaSrtawoed (9pm to 12aM)........cereseeseereenees 7
Late Night 32 093, (12aM to 5aM).........eseerserrseeenrernenees 8
Don't Know/Can't Say R@80/BeYO an... ecceesserveernens

PR eRe eer enenennene

errr

Due to my religion Bq, GaVEG FIGHABOGD ..-.--..seerevsereennes

Due to mygenderJA, OOD BIOMPBOT.......-0essseesseeeees =)
Due to my mother-tongue
Jqj nse sedAOH0os.......7
Due to my native state Jq, Btw, 0923.0 GdH06 .......... 8
Due to my sexual orientation
34, Jos
3B) 3dv0d.....9
Perret

(Do notprompt)
26@ A edd BY dood
BB O8
dreddy?

KCVS Questionnaire.Doc
274 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

Bader dacevr G.SBIsN d8 moddowy

ae
2a dd00
Uncomfortable to go to Police Station
Sader’ oat Heervay vasaeAw
Did not think the police would be able to do
anything about the case
Badesm omode armsed onsou
x}
|
Did not think police would entertain the case
Ades sera, Sicdeow
sed vAdwOo
Police is unfair Zadewm Aa,ob Bddy os
Family matters need not be reported
Benowa Adob SdHaAceedc
This is better settled outside the police station
Sader¥ Ovtab Bedr ws.Gr wvsad
Bad past experience with reporting to Police
Sader fh 308 avGs 8y embdadd
Others: (Please specify) ====
asa(NOraaeh wee)
Don't Know/Can't Say nadeu/eevuari |99|
If 26E is Yes, why did you report? To recover property/ Perso ..........,-seecerssssseecenrsrenenerarnees 1
26 an usd Sond oF 3dH AWBHS? 62/8,d0bm, DHadabew
FOR ANNU NONIIIOD TOIIONINN Soho csc acty ssvcsp enn csovsrensncnopeceroomsas 2
Aad sdanenr
Crime should be reported ..........-.:::::seccseseesesrecessesenencenenes 3
eaoainvay ScdaArdsead
RTT yet [Oc | a ea REY I IT eae 4
am nodes daa
Wanted offender to be caught and punished .............-:0 5
edoeabay bAcd 38 deadea
To stop it from happening again/to get help...............00 6
Hs ace sridos YOAw/ Ssoad Sdabw
Others: (Please specify) a3d(S862) ™
If 26E is Yes, how did you report the Called 100 301008, BOAT ..........eeensssessessueesnnnnnnnnnnnsen
above crime?
Called other police helpline .................ccc:sc:ssesseseseeeeseenesrenes 2
262 Revdd edodd aeds vdoedd oder’ Aavadaecd dard
arf BertdB areBHO? Went to police station Sedea¥ OaBrt Beed «2.2... 3
Approached a Police Officer ..............csssscssseeneeeseseeeenreneee 4
Aodea¥ sHeaday es avad
Don't Remember Se) ....0cecsscesssssssreecessuvssecceseorsssoveseessee 99
If 26E is Yes, what did the police do File a complaint Ged oandsad ican
upon hearing your complaint?
(Don’t read out the options, Mark Register an FIR aa © uo madadm |2 |
multiple options as respondents replies) Despatched a PCR vehicle
26a Nevgd adodd da), ded see 32 oO MRA BwhAGD
Bader OAD AroAdidd? ( woh, L-oesed, Took any injured persons for medical assistance
oMmeah NvaAy, J,Ssabmad Sewsgos Mearteod Fsabry 3,G,deob vist sdchloakad
rod3dd Asked you to go to another police station
ded Sader’ Oost Roervaoe Aart SeOadd
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED BY THE
RESPONDENT Came to the spot and investigated
MBImdd SeOdaynv adg aayrtd Avs, wom BASaAnvVAda»
wedd. Asked you not to file the complaint 7
roxmadaenddom seam
missing person, filed a missing
person report

madscd iM

[Didnot doanything Bwanadoy

Other: (Please specify) @80(OBraaah wee)
| 8

If 26E is Yes, Were you satisfied by the — |Yes C$) .....ccccsscvesssvessvvessvsessveesvesssvesesnsssevsessaveeaneenserenvesvene 1

action of the police? 26a rfougd

KCVS Questionnaire.Doc 49
 5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National... 275

Bod sadeat Srichdacd ga00 uri

| davrt 33 adabe
| 26K | If 26J is Yes, Why are you satisfied by They listened to the complaint Ge® seam
the police?
(Don't read out the options, Mark They registered thecomplaint accurately
multiple options as respondents replies) BOaivwA dew cand2Gm

| 268 hovsd s*dodd dedea’ They registered the complaint quickly

Srichdeod
add wrt dart ad 3,3 acd Deda, ver! cavOrvom
? They explained the action that they will take
( Sah, Udeded, omeabhriva susdmed Odd Sricbdews sabd wr} DS6Ldm
SewSgos row32) They solved the problem Saba, S6aa0 Arvada |5
5 |

:
CIRCLE IF RESPONDENT Other: (please specify) add(NOra aah Se?) 98
MENTIONS
MBIMID sSevagnv ws wayrid
wodd.
26L If 26J is No, Why are you not satisfied by They were not interested od6r exiédbddu bs
the police?
They were rude and impolite
(Don't read out the options. Mark
multiple options as respondents replies) od woah, Tv, doudsw
2683 Novsdau aomdd eden’ They did not do enough vesada), areddu al
seabed wr} dav? a8 FS av ? They refused to file the FIR
( solnivab, Ldeded, oabsabrivah ovss ae D EO’ Manda VYoIwSHALBW

Bewsgos row3d They tried to persuade me not to register an FIR

ag © 60 Gandadod AAT ud. sw sobs avadad
CIRCLE ALL MENTIONED BY THE
RESPONDENT They took a long time to register my FIR
Aa, os © BO CaDdAW SY Sv Sricdseodwm

They physically assaulted me

B,b8aeA av avAdd
They verbally abused me 3a, 38a
They didn't find or apprehend the offender
esorBabad, Hadsdvu/ BAAS ardde
They didn't recover my property (goods)

They didn't keep me properly informed

SAN DOairA anrkh3d 02d00
They were slow to arrive YS wav SAaeA wos

KCVS Questionnaire.Doc
276 S. Krishnaswamy and V. Aithala

References

Alexander, M. (2012). New jim crow - Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness. New York:
The New Press
Altrichter, H., Feldman, A., Posch, P., Somekh, B. (2008). Teachers investigate their work: An
introduction to action research across the professions. New York: Routledge. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9781315811918
Broadhurst, R., Bacon-Shone, J., Bouhours, B., Bouhours, T., & Kingwa, L. (Eds.). (2011).
Business and the risk of crime in China. ANU.
Chockalingam, K. (2003). Measures for crime victims in the Indian Criminal Justice System. The
144th International Senior Seminar Visiting Experts’ Papers, Resource Material Series No.81:
https://www.unafei.or.jp/publications/pdf/RS_No81/No81_11VE_Chockalingam.pdf
Common Cause & Lokniti - Centre for the Study of Developing Societies. (2018). Status of polic-
ing in India report, 2018: A study of performance and perceptions. Common Cause.
Durani, A., Kumar, R., Sane, R., & Sinha, N. (2017) Safety trends and reporting of crime. Mumbai:
IDFC Institute
Farrall, S., & Maruna, S. (2004). Desistance-focused criminal justice policy research: Introduction
to a special issue on desistance from crime and public policy. The Howard Journal of Criminal
Justice. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2311.2004.00335.x
Farrall, S., Jackson, J., & Gray, E. (2008). Reassessing the fear of crime. European Journal of
Criminology, 5(3), 363-380. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370808090834
Ferraro, K. F. (1995) Fear of crime: Interpreting victimization risk. SUNY Series in New Directions
in Crime and Justice Studies New York: State University of New York Press
Harcourt, B. E. (2006). Against prediction: Profiling, policing, and punishing in an actuarial age.
Chicago:University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/97802263 15997
Hinkle, J. C. (2015). Emotional fear of crime Vs. perceived safety and risk: Implications for mea-
suring “Fear” and testing the broken windows thesis. American Journal of Criminal Justice,
40(1), 147-168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-014-9243-9
Lewis, D. A., & Salem, G. (1986). Fear of crime: Incivility and the production of a social problem
New Brunswick. Transaction Publishers.
OECD/Open Society. (2019). Legal needs surveys and access to justice. OECD Publishing. https://
www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/g2¢9a36c-en.pdf?expires=1616733247 &id=id&accname=g
uest&checksum=85D057F1C66622C672F8D8BD 103360F8
Ogneva-Himmelberger, Y., Ross, L., Caywood, T., Khananayev, M., & Starr, C. (2019). Analyzing
the relationship between perception of safety and reported crime in an urban neighborhood
using GIS and sketch maps. Special Issue Urban Crime Mapping and Analysis Using GIS
(November 27, 2019).
Sarkar, A., Mukhopadhyay, D., Blake, C., & Prasad D. (2015). Crime victimisation and safety
perception: A public survey of delhi and mumbai. New Delhi: Commonwealth Human Rights
Initiative
Taylor, R. B. (2002) Fear of crime, social ties, and collective efficacy: Maybe masquerading
measurement, maybe déj'a vu all over again. Justice Quarterly, 19(4), 773-792. https://doi.
org/10.1080/07418820200095421
Yang, S.-M., & Hinkle, J. (2012). Issues in survey design: Using surveys of victimization and fear
of crime as examples. In Handbook of survey methodology for the social sciences. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3876-2_25
 5 The Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey 2018-2019: A Primer for a National... 277

Sudhir Krishnaswamy is the Vice-Chancellor of the National Law School of India University
and Varsha Aithala is a doctoral candidate at the National Law School of India University.
This chapter mainly draws from our work on the Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey con-
ducted by Azim Premji University, Bengaluru. Our thinking on this was greatly shaped by our
research team on the Karnataka Crime Victimization Survey at Azim Premji University, particu-
. larly, Dr. Siddharth Swaminathan and Asha Venugopalan. Asha Venugopalan prepared the statisti-
cal analysis and provided preliminary drafts of the survey report.
All figures, tables, and charts in this chapter are drawn from the Karnataka Crime Victimization
Survey conducted by Azim Premji University, Bengaluru in 2018-2019.

|
7

“ = 2 —
iW Ns ba - . vt -
a
ee ae ie, 24.2
ea ‘
ee 2 ‘ “Op 27a ob. Oe rhs
_—s _ : a r ae
‘| vn
2s
> # ’
as = vw) Peale 7T Vase

fate. fh. Ta bes) joo ee ee

nagar
at Sieg: + tay! ampe Fie 9/1
Deakins 0S}, Taree ae) sire yet ins 1a) wi kauaodpeg
Po! rape ig ti ieslliek itaslivn nain: dapantte pag
‘wah ‘en, bonny dat died
ee ae ee
tabi Taetapeion Peete CIS
a

: a ite
 Index

A F
Adaptive behaviour, 88, 90, 91, 93, 94, Fear of crime, 5, 156, 218, 221
98, 100-106 Fear of the police, 7, 149, 150, 168, 169,
Avoiding victimization, 61 177

B H
Bridging public data gap on crime, 61, 70 Household crimes, 62, 64
Burking, 12 Household survey, 15, 203

| I
Core public good, 7 Institutional and social character of crime,
Crime characteristics, 16, 20 202
Crime data, 8, 22, 36, 170, 208
Crime incidence, 12, 16, 17, 19-27, 62, 64,
66, 69, 70, 114, 202, 216 K
Crime registration and investigation, KCVS Victimization Rate, 209, 212
150, 161-166
Crime victimization, 6, 11, 12, 27, 46-60,
201-204, 208, 210, 218, 219, 221-223 L
Crime victimization survey (CVS), 6, 7, 14, Law enforcement, 61
61-115, 201, 214, 222 Levels of satisfaction, 161
Criminal justice system (CJS), 1-9, 32, 33, 45,
74, 169, 171, 174, 176, 222 ;
N
Neighbourhood crime rates, 41
D
Design and administration of crime
surveys, 207-208 O
Diversity, 149, 152, 170, 176, 177 Outcomes measurement, 4

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to 279
Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022
§. Krishnaswamy et al. (eds.), Crime Victimisation in India, Springer Series on
Asian Criminology and Criminal Justice Research,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-12251-4
280 Index

P S
Perception of safety, 5, 7, 16, 20, 61, 88, 106, Safety perception, 8, 9, 11, 12, 19, 21, 28, 41,
158, 161, 221 42, 44, 46-60, 66, 88, 90, 91, 93, 94,
Personal crimes, 64, 202 98, 100-106, 108, 221
Personal safety, 1, 2, 8, 9, 175, 176 Satisfaction with police, 37, 40, 70, 72-75,
Police adequacy and working 161, 237
conditions, 149-150 Seriousness of crime, 212, 221
Police infrastructure, 149, 170 Seriousness of offenses, 212—214, 221
Police performance, 44, 70, 149, 161, 162, 177 Socio-economic determinants of crime
Police response, 7, 11, 16, 18-21, 26, 33, victimization, 203
37-40, 74, 216, 217, 223
Policing, 5, 6, 11, 12, 31, 36, 45, 76, 86, 108,
149-152, 159, 170, 176, 178, 202, T
216, 223 Treatment of vulnerable communities, 150
Policing behaviour, 216, 218 Trust and satisfaction with the police, 149
Primary and secondary victimization, 202
Public opinion of police, 76
Public safety, 11, 12, 18, 43, 45 U
Under reporting of crime, 7, 154
Use of violence and excessive force by the
R police, 149
Registration of crime, 18, 34, 162, 165, 174, 177
Reporting behaviour, 7, 19, 29, 208, 212,
215,247 V
Reporting of crime, 12, 31, 61-147, 155, Victims of crime, 7, 32, 33, 210, 212, 217,
201, 202 220, 222

“Narayan Rao Melgiii

National Law Library”
Bangalore
~
4
.
vies NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
KA NAGARBHAVI, BENGALURU - 560 072
OFraat OO This book must be returned by the date stamped below
 adalan
author! Ws
 /

prin arSerie: onAsian Criminology andCriminal Justice Research

~ Series Editor: Jianhong Liu
: ‘Sudhir Krishnaswamy : Renuka Sane - Ajay Shah - Varsha Aithala Editors
~ Crime Victimisation in India

This edited volume is a pioneering and comprehensive study of crime victimisation in

"India. Relying on the findings of four crime victimisation surveys conducted in India, it
provides a unique basis for understanding crime in society. It considers the public’s fear
of crime and perceptions of safety and security, focusing on their access to the police
and how they view police effectiveness. This study provides critical data on the level
of crime within particular spatial and temporal conditions which can supplement
official statistics on crime published by the state, help systematically diagnose law and
order issues and develop solutions for improved policing and public safety.

A unique and timely volume, this book will be of interest to researchers of Asian
criminology, victimology and the study of the criminal justice system, as well as those
interested in empirical research and policy making in criminal justice.
¢ Forms a pioneering study of crime victimisation in India
¢ Conducts a rigorous empirical analysis of crime victimisation in India and
supports evidence-based policy making for the Indian criminal justice system
« Evaluates public perceptions of safety and security and performance
of the police

> springer.com
Es