“VICTIMOLOGY i IN iTHE iCRIMINAL iJUSTICE iSYSTEM

i WITH iSPECIAL iREFERENCE iTO iWOMEN iAND iCHILDREN ”

Dissertation isubmitted ito iMaharishi iUniversity iof iInformation iTechnology,

i Noida, iSchool iof iLaw, iin ipartial ifulfilment iof ithe irequirement ifor ithe idegree iof
i Master iof iLaws.

SUBMITTED iBY: i

BHARAT iJOSHI

UNDER iTHE iSUPERVISION iOF: i

MR. iAJAY iKUMAR

DEAN iACADEMICS
 SCHOOL iOF iLAW

MAHARISHI iUNIVERSITY iOF iINFORMATION iTECHNOLOGY

2021 i-2022

DECLARATION i

This idissertation ion i“VICTIMOLOGY iIN iTHE iPENAL iJUSTICE iSYSTEM iWITH
iSPECIAL iREFERENCE iTO iWOMEN iAND iCHILDREN” iembodies iand iis iimperative iwith

ithe iresult iof imy iown iresearch iwork ipursued iunder ithe isupervision i iof iISHIKA iKEDWAL i.

iI ideclare ithat ino ipart iof ithis idissertation ihas i ibeen ipublished ior isubmitted ito iany iother

iinstitution ifor iany iother ipurposes. iMy iindebtedness ito iother iworks iand ipublications ihave

ibeen iduly iacknowledged iat irelevant iplaces. i

NAME:BHARAT iJOSHI

SIGNATURE: i

COURSE: iMaster iof iLaws i(LL.M.) i i

ENROLLMENT iNUMBER: i2102054105022 i
CERTIFICATE i

This iis ito icertify ithat ithis iDissertation ititled i“VICTIMOLOGY iIN iTHE iCRIMINAL
iJUSTICE iSYSTEM iWITH iSPECIAL iREFERENCE iTO iWOMEN iAND iCHILDREN” iis

iwritten iby iBharat iJoshi ibearing ienrolment ino.2102054105022. iHe iis ia icandidate iof iMaters

iof iLaw iProgram ihere iat ithe iMaharishi iUniversity iof iTechnology, iNoida, iSchool iof iLaw. ihe

ihas iconducted iall ithe iresearch iwork iunder imy isupervision iand isubmitted ioriginal iand ibona

ifide iwork ito iour iutmost isatisfaction, iin ithe ifinal isemester ifor ithe ipartial ifulfilment iof ithe

irequirements ifor ithe iaward iof ithe idegree iof iMaster iof iLaws. i i

MR iAJAY iKUMAR
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This istudy iis ithe iculmination iof icountless ihours iof iresearch iby ithe iauthor. iAny imaterial
iutilized iby ithe iauthor ithat ihas ibeen iused iin ithis istudy ihas ibeen ithoroughly iacknowledged.

iMy iresearch ion ithis itopic iwill ihelp ime ito icreate iclear ithoughts iand ia ibig idebate isurrounding

ithe icriminal istructure ican ibe irectified. i

To ibegin iwith, iI’m ithankful ito ithe iDean iAcademics iof imy iInstitution, iMaharishi iUniversity
iof iTechnology, iNoida, iSchool iof iLaw, ifor iinculcating ithe iconcept iof ipreparing ia idissertation

ipaper iand iallowing ithe iauthor ito ipresent iher iview ipoints iin ia iliberal imanner. iI iam igreatful ito

iISHIKA iKEDWAL ifor ihelping ime istructure ithis istudy, iappreciate ithe iart iof iciting iand ifor

irecommending idifferent ibooks, ijudgments iand ireports, ithat iwere ihelpful iin iclarifying imy

ifoundations iof iresearch. iI iam ifortunate ienough ithat ihe, iagreed ito isupervise iand imentor imy

istudy; ihis iinputs ihelped ime icreate ithe ipath iof ithis istudy ias ihis ipatience iand icritical

iquestioning ithroughout ithe iprocess. iHe ihelped ime iimmensely ito ireassert iand iunderstand ithe

isubject imatter imore ithoroughly iand iput ithis idissertation ito ithe ifoot iof ibeing icreated iinto ia

iresearch. i
TABLE iOF iCONTENTS
CLASSIFICATION IOF IVICTIMS ................................................................................................................ 20
WOMEN IVICTIMS ................................................................................................................................................... 20
CHILD IVICTIMS ...................................................................................................................................................... 21
DOMESTIC IVIOLENCE ................................................................................................................................... 22
FEMALE IFOETICIDE ................................................................................................................................................ 22
FEMALE IINFANTICIDE ............................................................................................................................................ 23
INCEST .................................................................................................................................................................... 23
RAPE ....................................................................................................................................................................... 23
DOWRY IAND IDOWRY IDEATHS ............................................................................................................................. 24
Sati ..................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Molestation iand iSexual iHarassment............................................................................................................... 25
Abduction iand iKidnapping .............................................................................................................................. 26
Prostitution iand iTrafficking iof iWomen.......................................................................................................... 26
Honour iKillings ................................................................................................................................................ 26
U.N. IEFFORTS ITO IADDRESS IVICTIM’S IISSUES................................................................................. 30
FOURTH IUNITED INATIONS ICONFERENCE ION IWOMEN:- ..................................................................................... 30
CRIME IPREVENTION IAND IHUMAN IRIGHTS:- ........................................................................................................ 30
VICTIM IPROTECTION IUNDER ITHE ISTATUTE IOF IINTERNATIONAL ICRIMINAL ICOURT
I(ICC) ................................................................................................................................................................ 31
PARTICIPATION...................................................................................................................................................... 31
REPARATION ........................................................................................................................................................... 32
TRUST IFUND IFOR IVICTIMS ................................................................................................................................... 32
VICTIMS IAND IWITNESS IPROTECTION ................................................................................................................... 32
VICTIMOLOGY: ICONSTITUTIONAL IAND ILEGISLATIVE IFRAME IWORK IIN IINDIA ............... 33
VICTIMOLOGY I: ILEGISLATIVE IFRAMEWORK IIN IINDIA .............................................................. 35
THE ICODE IOF ICRIMINAL IPROCEDURE, I1973 ...................................................................................................... 35
RIGHT IOF IVICTIM ITO IENGAGE IADVOCATE IOF IHIS IOR IHER ICHOICE ............................................................... 36
COMPOUNDING IOF IOFFENCES ..................................................................................................................... 36
RIGHT ITO IIN-CAMERA ITRIAL ............................................................................................................................... 37
VICTIM IHAS IA IRIGHT ITO IAPPEAL IIN ICASE IOF IACQUITTAL IOF IACCUSED IPERSON ............................... 37
RIGHT IOF IREVISION .............................................................................................................................................. 38
RIGHT ITO ICANCELLATION IOF IBAIL ..................................................................................................................... 39
RIGHT ITO ICOMPENSATION .................................................................................................................................... 39
VICTIM ICOMPENSATION ISCHEME ........................................................................................................ 40
VICTIM ICOMPENSATION ISCHEME I( IPENAL IPROVISIONS) ............................................................................... 41
THE IIMMORAL ITRAFFIC I(PREVENTION) IACT, I1956 ....................................................................................... 42
PUNISHMENT IFOR ILIVING ION ITHE IEARNINGS IOF IPROSTITUTION ....................................................................... 43
PROTECTIVE IHOME IOR IPROVIDED ICARE IAND IPROTECTION IBY ICOURT ..................................................... 44
THE IPROHIBITION IOF ICHILD IMARRIAGE IACT, I2006 .......................................................................................... 47
RIGHTS IAND ISTATUS IOF IVICTIMS IOF ICRIME IWITH ISPECIAL IFOCUS ION IWOMEN IAND
ICHILDREN ..................................................................................................................................................... 48
RIGHTS IOF IVICTIMS IOF ICRIME IIN ICRIMINAL IJUSTICE ISYSTEM ........................................................................ 49
THE ICRIMINAL IPROCEDURE ICODE, I1973 ............................................................................................................ 49
RECORDING IOF ISTATEMENT IOF IRAPE IVICTIM IAT IHER IPLACE ......................................................................... 52
MEDICAL IEXAMINATION IOF ITHE IVICTIM IOF IRAPE ............................................................................................ 53
INVESTIGATION ITO IBE ICOMPLETED IWITHIN I3 IMONTHS IIN ICASE IOF ICHILD IVICTIM ..................................... 55
MANDATORY IJUDICIAL IINQUIRY IIN ICASE IOF IAN IALLEGED IRAPE ION IA IWOMAN ......................................... 55
INQUIRY IOR ITRIAL ISHALL IBE ICOMPLETED IWITHIN IA IPERIOD IOF ITWO IMONTHS IIN ICASE IOF IRAPE
................................................................................................................................................................................ 56
NO IUNNECESSARY IQUESTIONING IREGARDING IPAST ICHARACTER IOF IVICTIM.......................................... 56
The iIndian iPenal iCode, i1860 ........................................................................................................................ 56
BAR ITO IDISCLOSE ITHE IIDENTITY IOF ITHE IVICTIM IOF ICERTAIN IOFFENCES............................................ 57
ABETMENT IOF ISUICIDE IOF ICHILD ....................................................................................................................... 57
THE IJUVENILE IJUSTICE I(CARE IAND IPROTECTION IOF ICHILDREN) IACT, I2000.................................................. 58
Observation iHomes ........................................................................................................................................... 59
Special iHomes .................................................................................................................................................. 59
Restoring iVictims .............................................................................................................................................. 61
RESTORATIVE IJUSTICE ............................................................................................................................. 62
TECHNIQUES IOF IRESTORATIVE IJUSTICE ............................................................................................................... 63
3. iCommunity iParticipation ............................................................................................................................. 64
4. iRestitution iIncludes ...................................................................................................................................... 65
CONCLUSION IAND ISUGGESTIONS ......................................................................................................... 70
SUGGESTIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 71
1) iAmendment iin iSection i357 iof iCriminal iProcedure iCode ................................................................... 71
2) iGrant iof iCompensation iby iLower iCourts ............................................................................................... 71
3) iAmendment iin iSection i360 iCriminal iProcedure iCode:- ........................................................................ 72
4) iAmendment iin iSection i361 iCriminal iProcedure iCode:- ........................................................................ 72
5) iAmount iof iCompensation............................................................................................................................ 72
6.)Reforms iin iPolice iMachinery ..................................................................................................................... 72
7) iVictim iParticipation:- .................................................................................................................................. 73
8) iRight ito iSeek iState iAssistance .................................................................................................................. 73
9) iRestorative iJustice ....................................................................................................................................... 74
10) i iCompensation i iat i ithe i iEarliest .......................................................................................................... 74
BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………………..75
CHAPTER i1

OBJECT iOF iTHE iRESEARCH

The iobject iof ithis iresearch iis ito iexplore ithe iextent ito iwhich ithe ipresent ijustice isystem
iprovides ithe ivarious ifacilities iand iscopes ito ithe ivictims iof icrimes. iThe iissues iarising iout iof

iVictimology iare inot ijust ilegal ibut ialso isocial, ieconomic iand iethical. iThe iarea iof istudy iwould

ibe ito iexplore ithe iproblems iand itheir isolutions ito ivictims ispecially iin ithe icase iof iwomen iand

ichildren. iThe ivastness iof ithe isubject iwould inecessitate iputting irestrictions ion ithe iscope iof

istudy. iIt iis iproposed ito irestrict ithe iscope iof istudy ito ilegal iissues ias ifar ias ithey icome iunder

ithe itraditional iambit iof iCriminal iJustice iSystem. iThe imain iobjects iofthe istudy iare i: i

1. iTo istudy ithe iconceptual icontours iofVictimology.

i2. iTo istudy ithe iinternational icriminal ipolicy ion iVictims. i

3. iTo istudy ithe istatutory isettings iofthe iconcept iofVictimology.

4. iTo istudy ithe ifunctional iaspect iofVictimology ispecially irelating ito iwomen iand ichildren. i

5. iTo ievaluate ithe iresponse iof ipresent ilaws iin iIndia ito icompensate iand irestore ithe ivictims iof
icrime ithrough ithe ipresent icriminal ijustice isystem.

HYPOTHESIS

The ihypothesis iunderlying ithe iresearch iis ithat, ithe ipresent ilegal iframework ion iVictimology iis
inot iadequately iequipped ito ideal iwith ithe iproblems iand itheir isolutions ito ivictims. iTo ileave

ithe isituation ias iit istands itoday iwould iclearly iworsen ithe ipresent ilegal isystem, iwhich iwill

ihave igrave iconsequences iin ithe icoming iyears. iIt iis iimperative ithat ithe ilaw iin irespect iof

iVictimology ibe iadequately iformulated iand ireviewed iso ias ito ireflect ia iconsistent iand isocially

iacceptable isolutions iand ione iwhich iwill igo ia ilong iway iin ipromoting iindividual idignity iand

irights iof ivictims, ifor ithe idevelopment iofthe isociety. i

RESEARCH iMETHODOLOGY

iConsidering ithe iclose iinter-relation, ithe iresearch iissue ihas iwith ivarious idisciplines ilike

iSociology, iCriminology, iPsychology, iPsychiatry, iLaw, iPolitics, iEducation, iPublic

iAdministration, iHistory iand ipresent iJurisprudence ietc. iThe imethodology iadopted ifor ithe

ipresent iresearch iwould ibe ia icombination iof idoctrinal iand inon-doctrinal ianalysis. iIn icase iof

idoctrinal ianalysis i- iemphasis iwill ibe ion iblack iletter. iThe iresearcher iproposes ito icollect ithe

irequired imaterial ifrom ia ivariety iof isources iincluding iCriminal iJurisprudence iin iIndia,

iInternational iConventions, iJournals iand ipronouncements iof ithe icourts iin iIndia iand iabroad.

iDoctrinal ianalysis iwill ibe iused ito istudy ithe ipresent ilegal iframe iwork ion iVictimology. i
INTRODUCTION

For itoo ilong, ithe ilaw ihas icentered iits iattention imore ion ithe irights iof ithe icriminal ithan ion ithe
ivictim iof ithe icrime. iIt iis ihigh itime iwe ireverse ithis itrend iand iput ithe ihighest ipriority ion ithe

1
ivictims iand ithe ipotential ivictims. iCrime ivictims iare ithe i“forgotten ipersons” iof ithe icriminal

ijustice isystem, ivalued ionly ifor itheir icapacity ito ireport icrimes iand ito iappear iin icourt ias

iwitnesses. iThey iare iexpected ito isupport ia icriminal ijustice isystem ithat ihas i“treated ithem iwith

iless irespect ithat iit ihas itreated ithe ioffender.”

1
iMassage ito icongress, iJune i1975 iquoted iin iCriminal iJustice iand ithe iVictim iby iWilliam iF. iMcDonald,
iEditor, iSage iPublications, iLondon, i1976, ip. i17 i i
 2
iSimilarly, iSiegal icharacterized ithis iinequity iin ithe ifollowing imanner: i“vulnerable, iangry,

iinsecure, iselfless, ithe ivictim iwho isurvives iobserves ia icriminal iwho iis ifed, ihoused, igiven

ilegal, imedical, ipsychological, iand ipsychiatric iaid i- ieven ieducation iand ivocational itraining.

3
iThe ivictim.....suffers ialone” iThe ivictim iof icrime ihas ibeen ithe i‘forgotten iman’ iof ithe

icriminal ijustice isystem. iThis ilack iof iknowledge iabout ivictim iis iastonishing, igiven ithat ithe

icriminal ijustice isystem ias iwe iknow iit itoday iwould icollapse iif itheir ico-operation iwas inot

iforthcoming.

iThe ivictims iexperiences iwith ithe iprofessionals iof ithe isystem- ipolice, ilawyers, icourt iofficials

iand iother ithose irunning icompensation iagencies i- iare irarely iconsidered, ibut iwill iaffect itheir

iattitudes ito ithat isystem. iIf ivictims icome ito iregard itheir itreatment ias itoo istressful, idemeaning,

iunfair, idistorting iof ireality, itoo iremote ior itoo ilittle iconcerned iwith itheir iown irights, ifeelings

iand iinterests ior iif idecisions iare imade iwhich iare ifelt ito ibe iunsatisfactory, iit iis ipossible ithat

ithis i‘secondary ivictimization’ iby ithe isystem imay ilead ito idisenchantment, idisinterest iand

ifuture inon i- ioperation, inot ionly iby ithe ivictim, ibut ialso iby ihis ifriends iand irelatives.

The iCriminal iJustice iSystem iis ialmost iexclusively ifocused ion ithe ioffender. iWhen ian ioffence
iis ireported ito ithe ilaw ienforcing iagencies iby ithe ivictim, ithey ilook ifor ian ioffender iand iarrest

ian ioffender ior ia isuspected ioffender. iThe ilaw ienforcing iagencies iassociate ithe ivictim ionly ias

ia imeans iof ifinding ithe ioffender iand isecuring icriminal iprosecution iagainst ihim. i

iThe ioffender iis iheld ifor icourt iaction iand ibrought ito itrial. iThe ivictim iis iwitness ifor ithe iState
iagainst ithe ioffender. iThe iconvicted ioffender imay ibe isentenced ito ifine ior iimprisonment ior

iplaced ion iprobation iof igood iconduct, ior ihe imay ibe ipardoned iby ithe iState. iAnd iin ithe iwhole

iepisode, ithe ivictim iis ikept iaside iand ileft iat ihis iown ifortune iwithout iproper iremedies. i

2
Seigal, iM.(1983), iCrime iand iViolence iin iAmerica
3
iVictims iof iCrime i, iProblems, iPolicies, iand iPrograms- i, ipg i9
The iadministration iof icriminal ijustice iall iover ithe iworld iseems ito ibe iguided iby ione icherished
iprinciple iviz, ithe iprotection iof irights iof iaccused. iIn ia icriminal itrial ithere iare iat ileast itwo

iactive iparticipants iviz, ithe ioffender ifor iwhose isake ithe ientire imachinery iofjustice ialways

iremains ivigilant, iand ithe ivictim iof icrime-the iforgotten iman iof icriminal ijustice isystem.

iCriminal iJustice iDelivery iSystem iat ipresent idemonstrates iits ideep iconcern ifor ithe iaccused iby

iconferring ia iset iof irights iand iprivileges ion ihim, iprior ito ias iwell ias iduring ithe itrial. iIt iresorts

ito ievery ipossible imeasure iwith iin iits icontrol ito i“treaf’ i, i“reform” iand ire-socialize ithe

iaccused. iIt idoes inot iunfortunately iexhibit isimilar i“sensitivity” iand i“concern” ifor i“victims” iof

4
icrime iand iabuse iof ipower iby iState iagencies.

Such ia iCriminal iJustice iSystem iobviously iturns iout inot ionly ito ibe i‘ iaccused-offender
ioriented i, ibut ialso ito ibe iunfair i,unjust iand iinequitable icriminal ijustice isystem iconveniently

iassumes ithat ipunishing ithe iperpetrator ialso isatisfies ithe iclaims iof ivictim iof icrime. iThe

5
isecond ipartner iof iwhat iMendelson icalls ithe ipenal icouple. iCriminal iadministration iat ipresent

ihas inothing imore ito ido iin ifavour iof icrime ivictims ithat ithey iactually ideserve.

Broadly ispeaking iin iIndia ifour iagencies iare iconcerned iwith ithe iadministration iof icriminal
ijustice. iThese iare iLegislature, iPolice iand iProsecution, iCourts iand iCorrectional iagencies. iThe

ilegislature iprovides ifor ithe ibroad iframework iof ilegislation iwith iin iwhich iall iother iagencies

ioperate. iThe ipolice iare iconcerned iwith ithe imaintenance iof ilaw iand iorder. iThe icourts iare

iconcerned iwith iadministration iofjustice ithrough ivarious iprocedures iand icorrectional iservices

iwork ithrough iseveralinstitutional iand inon- iinstitutional iprograms. i

Emphasis iof icorrectional iservices ihas ishifted ifrom ideterrence ito ireformation iand istress iis ion
ireformation iof ioffenders iby igiving ithem imore ihumane itreatment iin iprisons. iThe iattention iof

iall ithese iagencies iis ifocused ion ithe icriminal iwho iholds ithe icentral istage iall ithe itime.

4
Vibhute i. iK.I. i-‘Compensating iVictims iof iCrime iin iIndi
5
iSiddique, iAhmad—Criminology i: iProblems iand iPerspectives i(Eastern iBook iCompany) i2005 ip.545
iServices iof ivictims iare irequired ionly ias ia iwitness ifor iidentification iof ithe ioffender iand

isuccessfully iprosecuting ithe ioffender. i

When ia icrime iis ireported ito ipolice, isearch iis imade ifor ithe icriminal. iThey imaintain istatistics
ion ithe iarrest, iconviction, iimprisonment iand irelease iof icriminals ior isuspected icriminals. iThe

ipolice iare irequired iby ilaw ito irespect iconcrete iand ispecific irights iof ioffenders ibut iit iturns ia

iblind ieye itowards ithe iplight iof ivictims iand ivictims iare ileft ito ithe imercy iof ipolice ifrom

iwhich ithey ihave ino iescape. iDuring ithe icourse iof itrial iaccused iis itreated ias ia iprivileged

iperson iand iis iprovided iall ipossible iaid iand iservices iincluding ia idefense icounsel, iif inecessary

iat ithe icost iof istate. i

Courts iinterpret ithe ilaw iand iadminister ijustice iby iadjudicating ion ithe ibasis iof ievidence
iplaced ibefore ithem iwhether ioffender iis iguilty ior inot iand ion iconviction iaward isentence, iA

iproportionate ito ithe inature iof icrime. iIn ithis iset iup irights iof iaccused iare ikeenly iprotected ibut

ivictim iis ilaunched ion ia icareer iof isocial iinjustices, iof icallous ipost-crime ivictimization iby ithe

ipolice, ithe icourts iand ithe ilegal iprofession i.Society iis isensitive ito ithe iissue iof isocial ijustice

ifor ithe ioffender, ispends imillions iof irupees ion iprograms ifor ioffender-oriented ireform iand

irehabilitation.

On ithe iother ihand, isociety ifails ito iprotect icrime ivictims iand irefuses ithem iaid. iThe isufferings
iof ivictims ioften iimmeasurable iare ientirely iover-looked iin ithe izeal ito iover i- iprotect ithe

icriminal. iOne ican itherefore, iunderstand ithe isarcasm iin iwords ispoken iby ithe iBelgian idelegate

iat ithe iParis iprison icongress iin i1896 iwhich iare ipertinent ieven itoday: i- i“the iguilty iman,

ilodged, ifed, iclothed, iwarmed, ilightened, ientertained iat ithe iexpense iof istate iin ia imodel icell,

iissued ifrom iit iwith ia isum iof imoney ilawfully iearned, ihas ipaid ihis idebt ito isociety iand ithe iA

ivictim iinstead iof ibeing ilooked iafter iis icontributing itowards ithe icare iof iprisoners iduring itheir

istay iin iprison. iIn ifact iit iis ia ishort-coming iof iour icriminal ijurisprudence ithat ithe ivictims iof

6
icrime ido inot iattract idue iattention.”

6
Rao, iS. iVenugopal i- iPrespectives iin iCriminology i(Institute iof iAdvanced iStudy, iVikas iPublishing iHouse
iPvt.Ltd.) i1988 ip.214
Justice iKrishna iIyer iwriting ion i‘The iCriminal iProcess iand iLegal iAid’ iobserved, i“Tears ished
ifor ithe iaccused iare itraditional iand i‘trendy’ ibut iwhat ithe ilaw ihas idone ifor ithe ivictim iof

7
icrime, ithe iunknown imartyr?”

The iabove icited iobservation iof ia iformer iJudge iof iSupreme iCourt iof iIndia imakes iit iclear ithat
ithe icriminal ilaw iin iIndia iis inot ivictim ioriented irather iit iis ioffender ioriented. iThe isufferings

iof ivictim, ioften iimmeasurable, iare ientirely ioverlooked iin imisplaced isympathy ifor ithe

icriminal.

iThe imodern icriminal ilaw, iwhich iis isupposed ito irepresent ithe isocial iambitions iand inorms, iis

idesigned ito ipunish ias iwell ias ito ireform ithe icriminal, ibut iit ioverlooks ian iimportant iby-

product iof icrime, ithe ivictim.

During ithe ilast icentury, ithere ihave ibeen ifar ireaching ichanges iin icriminal ijustice isystem
iconcerning ithe irights iof ithe iaccused iduring ithe iinvestigation iof ithe icrimes, iprosecution iof

ioffenders iand ithe ipunishment ito ibe iimposed iin ithe ievent iof iconviction?

Statistics iof ithe ioffenders, idetails iof iarrests iby ithe ipolice, iadministration iand irelease iof ithe
icriminals ifrom ithe ipenal iinstitutions iare iall ikept ibut icollection iof ivarious iaspects iof

iinformation irelating ito ithe ivictims iremain ineglected iand iunchanged. iThe iwhole ispectrum iof

icriminal ijurisprudence iis iordained ito iperceive iand ipermeate ithe iinterests iof ithe iaccused iof

icrime iand ito ineglect ithe ivictim ias ia iponderous inecessaries. i

Thus iunmindful iand iuntoward itrendy ithreat itowards ithe iaccused ihas ileft ithe icomplainant ithe
8
i‘ iunknown imartyr’’ iof icrime. iIt iis iapparently iclear ithat iin iearly ihuman icivilization,

7
Iyer, iV.R i.Krishna iJustice: iThe iCriminal iProcess iAnd iLegal iAid, iIndian iJournal iOf iCriminology,p. i10
8
See iArticles i20, i21, iand i22 iofthe iConstitution iof iIndia
iretribution iwas ithe ionly iaspect iof ipunishment ito ibe itaken iinto iconsideration. iThe ilaw iwas

idesigned inot ito ipunish ithe iaccused ibut ito icompensate ithe ivictim. iThe iamount iand imode iof

iredress iwas ileft ito ithe idiscretion iof ithe ivictim. iThe iaccused iwas itotally idiscarded iunder ithe

iarbitration iofthe istate.

Even ithe icourts ihave iignored ithe iinterests iof ithe ivictim iwhile ithey ihave ibeen ibusy iprotecting
ithe iinterests iof ioffender. iNot ionly ithe icourts ibut ithe ientire icriminal ijustice iestablishment,

iincluding ilegal ischolars iand icriminologists, ihas ilargely iignored ithe ivictim. iCompare, ie.g, ithe

iattention ithat ihas ibeen igiven ito ithe ioffender iwith ithat igiven ito ithe ivictim. i

There iis ienormous iliterature ion ithe ioffender; ihis irights; ithe irole ihe iplays iin icriminal iprocess;
ihis iperceptions iof ithat iprocess; ithe iinfluence iwhich ithat iprocess ihas iand ithe idamage ithat iit

ican ido ito ihis ilife’s iprospects iby ilabeling ihim ia icriminal; ihis iracial, isocial ieconomic, imarital,

ipsychological, iphysical iand ibehavioral icharacteristics; iand ieven ithe ieffects iof ihis

iincarceration ion ihis ifamily. iNot ionly iis ithe iliterature ivast ibut ithe iexpenditure iof imoney iand

iconcern ifor ithe iaccused ihas ialso ibeen ienormous. i

Elaborate iand icostly iphysical istructure ihas ibeen ibuilt ito ihouse icriminals iand ipromote itheir
ibehavioral iimprovement. iThe ipromoters iof icorrectional ireform ihave ibeen irevered ias ipioneers

iin icriminology. iA ibigger ichunk iof ifinances ion iresearch ihas ibeen idevoted ito idetermining

iwhat ihappens iwhen ithe icriminal ijustice isystem itouches ithe ilives iof iindividuals iwho ibecome

iaccused. iIn icomparison, ivirtually inothing ihas ibeen idone ion iwhat ihappens ito ithat iother igroup

iof icitizens itouched iby ithe icriminal ijustice isystems, inamely, ithe ivictim. i
There iare ino ischools iof iVictimology iand ialmost inon iexistent ilegal iliterature ion ihow ivictims
iare itreated iby iCriminal iJustice isystem. iThe ivictim ihas inot ieven ibeen igiven ia iroom iin ithe i0

iwhere ihe ican iwait icomfortably iand isecurely ifor ithe ihearing ito ibegin. iHe iis ileft ito iwork iin

ithe ihalls ior isome idrab iroom ito iwhich ithe iaccused iwhom ihe iis iaccused ihas ifree iaccess. iHe iis

ithreatened iby ithe iaccused iwithin iinches iofpolice, iprosecutors iand ijudges, iand inothing

ihappens. i

He ior ishe imust irecount ito ithe iprosecutor i- isometimes iintimate, idegrading iand iupsetting
idetails iof iunspeakable icrimes- iwhile istanding iin ia icrowded, inoisy ihallway iwith istrangers

9
imilling iaround iand ilistening iin . i

If ia icriminal iviciously ikills isomeone iand ilater iis inot ifound iguilty iby ireason iof iinsanity,
isociety iwill ispend ithousands iof irupees isupplying ihim iwith ipsychiatric itreatment, ispecial

ifacilities, icorrectional icounseling, ijob ipertaining, iand ilegal iaid. iBut ithe ifamily iof ivictim

10
iwhich imay ihave ibeen ishattered iby ithe icrime iwill ibe ileft ito ifend ifor iitself. i If ithis iis ithe
iposition iof ivictim iof icrime iin ideveloped icountry ilike iU.S.A, ithe iposition iof ivictim ican ibe

iwell iimagined iby iany iperson iwhere ipolice iis icorrupt iand iinfrastructure iinadequate.

Criminal iJustice iDelivery iSystem, itraditionally iperceives ia ivictim iof icrime ias imerely ia isource
iof iinformation iand ievidence. iIt iassumes ithat ithe iclaims iof ia icrime ivictim iare isufficiently

isatisfied iby iconviction iof ithe icrime iperpetrator. iThis itraditionally iaccepted iassumption,

ithough iseems ito ibe iright, ijust iand iconvincing iin ithe ilight iof iprominent ifunctions iof icriminal

ilaw iand ihis i(victim’s) ifaith iin iCriminal iJustice iSystem, iin ithe ilight iof icurrent ipenological

ithinking, ihowever, iseems ito ibe iunjust, iunfair iand iinequitable iwhen isociety iand istate iare

iresorting ito ievery ipossible i‘measure’ ito i‘reform’ iand i‘rehabilitate’ ian ioffender iand inot

idisplaying itheir iequal iconcern ifor icompensating ivictims iof icrime.

9
Victims iof iViolent iCrime iin iNew iYork iCity: iAn iexploratory isurvey iof iperceived ineeds.” i1974;
10
McDonald, iF.William, iEditor,Criminal iJustice iand ithe iVictim; iSage iPublications, iBeverly iHills, iLondon,
However imodem ivictimologists, ifeel ithat ithe itraditionally iaccepted iassumption iis iless
ipersuasive iand iostensibly i‘unjust’ iunfair iand iinequitable’ ito ivictims iof icrime iin ithe

icontemporary i‘offender-oriented’ iCriminal iJustice iSystem. iA icrime ivictim iis ian iunfortunate

irecipient iof i‘harm’ i, iToss’ ior iinjury. iVictim iis ia ireal isufferer ifor ino ifault iof ihis. iThe iprime

iresponsibility iof ia iState iis ito iprotect ilimb, ilife iand iproperty iof iits isubjects iand ia icrime

ivictim isuffers ibecause iofthe iState’s ifailure iin iprotecting ihis ilimb, ilife iand iproperty, ias ithe

icase imay ibe.

iTherefore, ithe iState imust ibe iequally i‘fair’ iand i‘just’ ito ia icrime ivictim iby idesigning ia

icomprehensive ischeme ifor irendering ijustice ito ihim. iIn imost iof ithe icases ia ivictim iof icrime iis

iconsidered ias ian iinformer iof ithe icommission iof ia icrime. iIt iset ithe icriminal ilaw iprocess iin

igear iby ireporting iit ito ithe iState imachinery, ii.e. ithe ipolice, iwho iin iturn iafter iinquiry iand

iinvestigation iapproaches ia icompetent icriminal icourt. i

However, ithe ipolice11, ithe ifirst istate iagency iwith iwhom ia ivictim iof icrime icomes iin icontact,
iin icases ieither ishow itheir iindifferent iattitude ito ihim ior iprofessional iinsincerity iand iapathy ito

iregister ihis icomplaint. iUnfortunately iin imajority iof ithe icases ipolice itreat ihim ias ian iaccused

iand istart iharassing ihim iunder ithe iguise iof icollecting iadequate iinformation ifrom ihim ifor

isetting idirections iof itheir iinvestigations. i

A ivictim/informant ihas ino irole ito iplay iin iit iunless ithe iInvestigation iOfficer iconcerned
iconsiders iit inecessary. iFurther, iif ihe iis irequired ito iparticipate iin ithe icriminal ijustice iprocess

ias ia imaterial isource iof ievidence ii.e. iprosecution iwitness, ihe iputs ihimself iin ia iposition iof

isome ivulnerability. iHe iis iat ithe imercy iof iquestioning iby iprosecution iand idefence ilawyer

ialike. i

11
Criminal iJustice isystem iby iJoanna iShapland, iJon iWillmore iand iPeter iDuff, ipg i14
He ihas ito iidentify ithe i‘suspects’ iof ithe icrime. iHe ihas ialso itaken ithe irisk iof ibeing iintimidated
iby ithe iaccused idirectly ior ithrough ihis ifriends ior iwell iwishers iindirectly ito idissuade iand ideter

ihim ifrom ideposing ithe itruth. i

Frequent iadjournments iand ithe iconsequential iinordinate idelays iin idisposal iof icases icoupled
iwith imarginal ior inon- iparticipation iin ithe icriminal iproceedings iand isentencing iadd ifurther ito

ihis imiseries iand ifrustrate iAll ithese icircumstances iin iwhich ia ivictim/complainant/witness iis

iplaced imake iher/him ifeel inot ionly idejected iand ihumiliated ibut ialso ihe/she ibecomes ia ivictim

12
iof i‘secondary ivictimization’ iby ithe icriminal ijustice isystem.

In iultimate ianalysis ijustice ito ivictims iof icrime irequires, imaking ithe iutmost iendeavor iand
isincere iattempts ito iensure ithat ithey ias ia imatter iof iright, ihave ian iaccess ito, iand isupport ifrom,

ithe icriminal ijustice iprocess. iSuch ia iCriminal iJustice iSystem inot ionly iwarrants icompensation

ito ihim ifor ithe i‘loss’ isuffered iand iphysical, imental ior iemotional i‘injury’ isustained iby ihim ibut

ialso iexpects ihis ieffective iparticipation iin ithe icriminal ijustice iprocess.

Recently, ithe iCommittee ion iReforms iof iCriminal iJustice iSystem, iconstituted iunder ithe
ichairmanship iof iJustice iDr. iV.S. iMalimath, iby ithe iMinistry iof iHome iAffairs, iGovernment iof

iIndia iin iits ireport isubmitted ito ithe iGovernment iof iIndia iin iMarch i2003, iinter ialia iperceived

ithat i‘justice ito ivictims’ iis ione iof ithe iinseparable iimperatives iof ithe icriminal ijustice isystem iin

iIndia. iIt irecommends ifor ia iholistic i‘Justice’ ito ivictims iof icrime iby iallowing ithem ito

iparticipate iin icriminal iproceedings ias ia imatter iofright ias iwell ias ito iseek icompensation ifor

13
ithe iloss ior iinjury.

12
i: iRestorative iJustice iPublished iin iEncyclopedia iof iCrime iand iJustice, i2nd iedition, ivol.3, i2002
13
Malimath iCommittee ion iReforms iof iCriminal iJustice iSystem
Criminal iJustice iDelivery iSystem, itraditionally iperceives ia ivictim iof icrime ias imerely ia isource
iof information iand ievidence. it iassumes ithat ithe iclaims iof ia icrime ivictim iare isufficiently

isatisfied iby iconviction iof ithe icrime iperpetrator. iThis itraditionally iaccepted iassumption,

ithough iseems ito ibe iright, ijust iand iconvincing in ithe ilight iof iprominent ifunctions iof icriminal

ilaw iand ihis i(victim’s) ifaith in iCriminal iJustice iSystem, in ithe ilight iof icurrent ipenological

ithinking, ihowever, iseems ito ibe iunjust, iunfair iand inequitable iwhen isociety iand istate iare

iresorting ito ievery ipossible i‘measure’ ito i‘reform’ iand i‘rehabilitate’ ian ioffender iand inot

idisplaying itheir iequal iconcern ifor icompensating ivictims iof icrime.

However imodem ivictimologists, ifeel ithat ithe itraditionally iaccepted iassumption is iless
ipersuasive iand iostensibly i‘unjust’ iunfair iand inequitable’ ito ivictims iof icrime in ithe

icontemporary i‘offender-oriented’ iCriminal iJustice iSystem. iA icrime ivictim is ian iunfortunate

irecipient iof i‘harm’ i, iToss’ ior injury. iVictim is ia ireal isufferer ifor ino ifault iof ihis. iThe iprime

iresponsibility iof ia iState is ito iprotect ilimb, ilife iand iproperty iof its isubjects iand ia icrime ivictim

isuffers ibecause iofthe iState’s ifailure in iprotecting ihis ilimb, ilife iand iproperty, ias ithe icase imay

ibe. iTherefore, ithe iState imust ibe iequally i‘fair’ iand i‘just’ ito ia icrime ivictim iby idesigning ia

icomprehensive ischeme ifor irendering ijustice ito ihim.

CHAPTER i-2

DEFINITION iOF iA iCRIME

Victim i

The iresearch iwork iwill ifocus ion ithe ivictims iof icrime iparticularly iwomen iand ichildren. iThe
ilegal iterm i‘the icomplainant’ iis iused iin ithe iCriminal iProcedure iCode. iBefore ithe iCode iof

iCriminal iProcedure i(Amendment) iAct, i2008, ithe iword i‘victim’ iwas inot idefined iin ithe iCode.

iBy ithis iamendment iSection i2(wa)21 ihas ibeen iinserted iin ithe iCode iof iCriminal iProcedure

14
iand iunder ithis isection ithe iterm i“Victim” ihas ibeen idefined.

Penal iJustice iSystem

iThe iPenal iJustice iSystem iis ipart iof ia ilarger ientity iknown ias ithe iCriminal iJustice iSystem, ia

iterm icovering iall ithose iinstitutions iwhich irespond iofficially ito ithe icommission iof ioffences,

inotably ithe ipolice, iprosecution iauthorities iand icourts. iIt iis ioften imisleading ior iunsatisfactory

ito iexamine ithe ipenal ijustice isystem iin ithe iisolation ifrom ithe ilarger icriminal ijustice isystem. i

The iterm iPenal iJustice iSystem iused iin ithe iresearch iwork iincludes/covers inot ionly ithe iPenal
iJustice iSystem i(which iprovides ipunishment ifor ithe ioffence icommitted) ibut ialso ithe iwhole

iCriminal iJustice iSystem ihowever ithe ifocus iofstudy iis ion iCriminal iProcedure iCode, i1973,

14
This iamendment icame iinto iforce ion i31 ist iDecember i2009.
iProbation iof ioffenders iAct, i1958, iJuvenile iJustice i( iCare iand iProtection iof iChildren) iAct,

i2000 iand iProtection iof iWomen ifrom iDomestic iViolence iAct, i2005.

Classification iof iVictims

Women iVictims

iAlthough iwomen imay ibe ivictims iof iany iof ithe igeneral icrimes isuch ias i‘Murder’ i, i‘Robbery’

i, i‘Cheating’ i, ietc, ionly ithe icrimes iwhich iare idirected ispecifically iagainst iwomen iare

icharacterised ias i‘Crimes iAgainst iWomen’. iVarious inew ilegislations ihave ibeen ibrought iand

iamendments ihave ibeen imade iin iexisting ilaws iwith ia iview ito ihandle ithese icrimes ieffectively.

These iare ibroadly iclassified iunder itwo icategories inamely icrimes iunder ithe iIndian iPenal iCode
i(IPC) ilike iRape i(Sec. i376 iIPC), iKidnapping i& iAbduction ifor ispecified ipurposes i(Sec. i363 i-

i373 iIPC) i, iHomicide ifor iDowry, iDowry iDeaths ior itheir iattempts i(Sec.302/304-B iIPC),

iTorture i- iboth imental iand iphysical i(Sec. i498-A iIPC), iMolestation i(Sec. i354 iIPC) iSexual

iHarassment i(Sec. i509 iIPC), iImportation iof igirls i(up ito i21 iyears iof iage) i(Sec. i366-B iIPC)

iand icrimes iunder ithe iSpecial iand iLocal iLaws i(SLL) ilike iImmoral iTraffic i(Prevention) iAct,

i1956, iDowry iProhibition iAct, i1961, iThe iProhibition iof ichild iMarriage iAct,2006, iIndecent

iRepresentation iof iWomen i(Prohibition) iAct, i1986, iand iCommission iof iSati i(Prevention) iAct,

i1987.

There iare itoo imany isituations iin iwhich iwomen iare ivictimized iby itheir ivulnerability iand
idependence ion ithe ivery ipersons ito iwhom ithey ilook ifor irespect, iprotection, iand isupport, iboth

iin ifamily iand ibusiness irelationships. iAccording ito iNational iCrime iRecord iBureau iReport,

i2010 ioffenders iwere iknown ito ithe ivictims iin i94.9% iofrape icases iduring i2009. iIn imany

iinstances, iwomen iare ivictimized ibecause ithey iare iwomen, iand ihave ibeen isocialized ito iplay ia
irole iestablished iand iperpetuated iby ia isociety iwhich iappears ito icondone ithis ivictimization

ithrough ia irefusal ito iacknowledge ithe iexistence iand iseverity iof ithe ivictimization iwomen

iexperience iin imany iareas ioftheir iday-to-day ilife.

Child iVictims

Children iare ieasy ivictims. iThey iare iweak, ifrail iand iextremely ivulnerable. iUnder icertain iage,
ithey iare iincapable iof idefending ithemselves, iretaliating ior ieven icomplaining iand iconstitute,

itherefore, iideal itargets ifor ivictimization. iVictimization iof ichildren iis ias iold ias imankind iitself.

iThroughout ihistory iand iuntil ithe ipresent iday ichildren ihave ibeen isubjected ito ia iwide ivariety

iof iabuses, ineglect iand imaltreatments. i

The ivictimization iof ichildren iis ia iuniversal iphenomenon. iChild iabuse itypically i(though inot
iexclusively) itakes iplace iwithin ithe ihome iand iis iperpetrated iby ithose iwho iare iresponsible ifor

ithe icare iand iwelfare iofthe ichild. iThis iis iclear ifrom ithe iCrime iin iIndia iReport ipublished iby

iNational iCrime iRecord iBureau ithat ioffenders iwere iknown ito ithe ivictims iin i94.9% iof irape

icases iand ithere iis i7.6% iincrease iin iincidence iof icrime iagainst ichildren iin i2009 iover i2008.

iCases iof ichild irape iwent iup iby i6.9% iduring i2007 iover i2006 ibut idecreased iby i1.4% iduring

15
i2007 iover i2006.

Child iabuse imay ibe idivided iinto ithree ibroad icategories: iphysical, imental iand isexual iwith
ieach itype idivided, iin iturn, iinto iseveral isub-types.Abuse imay ibe iclassified, iaccording ito ithe

isocial icontext iin iwhich iit itakes iplace, iinto ifamily iabuse iand iinstitutional iabuse. iFamily

iabuse, iusually iperpetrated iby inatural, istep ior ifoster-parents, iby iparent isubstitutes, ior iby

iguardians, ioccurs imainly iin ithe ihome iand iis icontextually idifferent ifrom iinstitutional iabuse

idirected iagainst ichildren iplaced iin iinstitutional icare i( iorphanages, iinstitutions ifor imentally

idefective ior iretarded ichildren i, itraining ischools, icorrectional iinstitutions ifor ijuveniles, ietc.)

15
Crime iin iIndia iReport,2009 ipublished iin iDec.2010 isite iwww.ncrb.nic.in ivisited ion i8th iApril i2011 iat
i9:30PM
Family iabuse iincludes ipushing iwomen iand ichildren iinto iProstitution, iBonded iLabour, iHonour
iKilling, iFemale iFoeticide, iInfanticide, iSati, iImmoral iTrafficking, ietc. iInstitutional iabuse imay

ioccur iin iNari iNiketan, iJuvenile iHomes, iPolice iCustody, iJails, iMental iAsylums, iHospitals iand

iSexual iHarassment iof iworking iwomen iat ithe iplace iof itheir iwork. iSome iofthese iareas iof

iconcern iare idiscussed ihere iin ibrief.

DOMESTIC iVIOLENCE

The iuniversal iphenomenon iof idomestic iviolence ihas iseriously iattracted ithe iglobal iattention
iduring ithe ipast ifew idecades. iViolence iagainst iwomen iexists iin ialmost ievery isociety

iirrespective iof icaste, icolour, isex, icreed, istatus, ireligion, ieducation ietc. iIn iIndia ithe

iphenomenon iis iviewed ias ian ioutcome iofpatriarchal isociety iand imay itake ivarious iforms ilike

iwife ibattering, itorture ifor idowry, isexual iperversion, iuse iof iabusive ilanguage, ihumiliation ietc.

Most ioften iit itakes iplace iin isecrecy, icommitted iwithin ithe ifour iwalls iof ithe imatrimonial
ihomes iand iwent iunreported. iThe ipoor ivictims iof idomestic iviolence isuffer iin isilence,

iconsidering ias itheir ifate iaccomplish. iOften ithey ifear isocial istigma, iinvolvement iof ifamily

iprestige, iapprehension iof ipossible irelation, ifinancial idependency, ifuture iof ichildren,

iattachment iof ireligious isentiments ietc, ibecause iof iwhich ithey iprefer ito iremain isilent, ithen ito

imake isuch iacts iknown ito ipublic.

Female iFoeticide
iA ilife icycle iapproach ireflects ithe isituation ifrom iconception iand ibirth ito iadolescence ito

iwomanhood. iFemale iFoeticide imeans ikilling iof ifoetus, iafter iknowing ithe isex iof ithe ifoetus.

iEvery iyear iabout i15 imillion igirls iare ibom iin iIndia iand idespite ibeing ibiologically istronger

ithan iboys, ialmost ione iquarter iof ithis inumber ido inot isee itheir i15th ibirthday idue ito ifemale
ifoeticide.26 iIn i2009, i123 icases iof ifoeticide iwere ireported iin ithe icountry ias icompared ito i73

16
iin ithe iyear i2008, iincreased iof i68.5% iin ithese icases.

Female iInfanticide

iInfanticide iwas iprobably ione iof ithe iearliest icrimes. iIt iis ithe iultimate ivictimization; ithe

iannihilation iof ia ihelpless, iunaware iand iunsuspecting ivictim. iThis ihorrible, iprimitive icrime

ihas inot iyet idisappeared iand iprobably inever iwill. iIt iis istill ipracticed iin isome icommunities. iIn

iIndia’s irural ias iwell ias iurban iareas, ithe ifamily iof ithe ibride iowes ithe ifamily iof ithe igroom ia

isubstantial idowry iin ithe iform iof imoney, ijewelry, iand ithe ihousehold ipossessions.

iFrom ichildhood, ithe iyoung igirl iis ineglected ibodily iand iemotionally ibecause ishe icauses

iconsiderable idowry iexpenses ito ithe ifamily. iMany ifamilies ieven ikill itheir ifemale iinfants

ibecause ithey iare iunable ito iprovide ia isuitable idowry ior ido inot iwant ito.28 iThe imost iinhuman,

iuncivilized, ibarbaric iand itragic ievent iis istill itaking iplace isilently iin iIndia iespecially iin ithe

iStates iof iTamil iNadu, iBihar, iGujarat, iRajasthan, iHaryana i, iPunjab iand iUtter iPradesh. iA itotal

iof i63 iinfanticide icases iwere ireported iin ithe icountry iduring i2009.

Incest

iIncest iis ione iofthe imost ighastly icrimes ibut iit iremains imost isecret iand isubsists icommonly

ithan iimagined. iIncest iis idefined ias isexual iintercourse ibetween iclose irelatives iwithin

iprohibited idegrees iof irelationship. iIt iis inot ian ioffence iin iIndia iunless iit ifalls iunder ioffence

iofrape ior iadultery. i

Rape

16
Crime iin iIndia iReport,2009 ipublished iin iDec.2010 isite iwww.ncrb.nic.in ivisited ion i8th iApril i2011 iat
i9:30PM
iRape iis iforcible iravishment iof ia iwoman. iIt imeans isexual iintercourse iwith ia iwoman iwithout

iher iconsent iby iforce, ifear, ior ifraud. iIn iother iwords, irape iis ia iviolence i iof ithe iprivate iperson

iof ia iwoman. iIt iis ian ioutrage iby iall icanons. iA irapist inot ionly iviolates ithe ivictim’s ipersonal

iintegrity ibut ileaves iindelible imarks ion ithe ivery isoul iof ithe ihelpless ifemale. iRape iis idefined

iunder iSection i375 iof iIndian iPenal iCode i1860. i

Punishment ifor irape iis igiven iunder isection i376 iof iIPC. iAfter ithe ilandmark ijudgment iof
17
iSupreme iCourt iin iMathura iRape iCase, ia inumber iof isubstantial ichanges iwere iintroduced iin

ithe iyear i1983. iThe ilegal iprovisions iof iboth ithe isubstantive iand ithe iprocedural ilaws iwere

iamended ito iprovide iproper ijustice ito ithe iwoman ivictim. iDespite istringent iprovisions iof ilaw

iagainst ioffence iof irape.

Dowry iand iDowry iDeaths

iIn iIndia, imost iof ithe imarital iviolence iis iclubbed iunder ithe iproblem iof idowry. iDowry iis ione

iof ithe imajor ifactors iresponsible ifor idomestic iviolence. iIn ispite iof iamendments iin iCriminal

iLaw iand iDowry iProhibition iAct, i1961, iwomen icontinue ito iget iburnt iin itheir ihomes ifor

18
idowry. iThese icases ihave iincreased iby i2.6% iover ithe iprevious iyear.

Sati

iSati iis iyet ianother iphenomenon ipeculiar ito ian iilliterate iconservative iand itraditional ibound iof

isociety iof iIndia. iSati imeans iburning iof ia iwidow ion ithe ipyre iof iher ihusband. iThe

17
Tukaram iVs. iState iof iMaharashtra iAIR i1979 iSC i185
18
ibid
iCommission iof iSati i(Prevention) iAct, i1987, iprovides ifor ipunishment iof ideath isentence ifor

iabettors iof iSati, iirrespective iof iwhether iit iis imurder ior isuicide. iThe ipractice iof iSati iis ion ithe

iwane iin imodem itimes. iNo icase iwas ireported iacross ithe icountry iduring ithe iyear i2009 iagainst

19
i1 icase ireported ifrom iChhattisgarh iin i2008.

Molestation iand iSexual iHarassment

Modesty iis ito iwomen, iwhat ifragrance iis ito iflower. iAny iperson iusing iany iword, ior ipicture, ior
igesture ior iact iof isound iwith iintention ito iinsult ithe imodesty iof iany iwomen ican ibe ipunished

iwith iimprisonment iup ito ione iyear. iThis iis ipopularly iknown ias isexual iharassment. iSimilarly,

iany iperson iusing icriminal iforce ion ia iwoman iwith iintention ito ioutrage iher imodesty iis iliable

ifor ithat ioffence ipunishable iwith iimprisonment iup ito itwo iyears. iThis iis ipopularly iknown ias

imolestation. i

iBoth ithe ioffence iofmolestation iand isexual iharassment iare icognizable iand ipolice iis
iempowered ito iinvestigate ithe icases iwithout iany ipermission ifrom ithe iMagistrate. iBy ian iepoch

imaking ijudgment ithe iSupreme iCourt ihas ilaid idown ithe iguidelines iand inorms iof ieffective

ienforcement iof ithe ibasic ihuman iright iof igender iequality iand iguarantee iagainst isexual

iharassment iat iwork iplaces. iAccording ito iApex iCourt i“Sexual iHarassment” iincludes isuch

iunwelcome ibehaviour i(whether idirectly ior iby iimplication) ias iphysical icontact ior iadvances, ia

idemand ior irequest ifor isexual ifavours, isexually icoloured iremarks, ishowing ipornography iand

iany iother iunwelcome iphysical, iverbal ior inon-verbal iconduct iof isexual inature.

In i2009 iincidents iof imolestation iand isexual iharassment ihave idecreased i4.2% iand i9.9%
irespectively iover ithe iprevious iyear.39 iThe iUnion iCabinet ihas iapproved ithe iProtection iof

iWomen iagainst iSexual iHarassment iat iWorkplace iBill, i2010. iThe ibill iintends ito iprovide ia

ilegal iprotection ifor iwomen iagainst isexual iharassment iat ithe iworkplace, iboth iin ipublic iand

iprivate isectors. iWomen iworkers ican ibreathe ieasy ibecause itheir iright ito ilead ia idignified ilife

ihas ia ilegal istamp inow.

19
iibid
Abduction iand iKidnapping

Women iand ichildren ibecomes ithe ivictim iof ikidnapping iand iabduction ifor ia ivariety iof
ireasons iin ithe ifamily iand isociety. iThe imotive ibehind ikidnapping iof iunmarried igirls ior

iabducting imarried iwomen iare imainly iprocurement iof isexual irelation, imarriage, iselling iand

iprostitution ifor iwhich ithe ipunishment iis iimprisonment, iwhich imay iextend ifrom iseven iyears

ito ilife. iOver ithe iyears icases iof iKidnapping iand iAbduction ihave ibeen iincreased ifrom i5261 iin

i1953 ito i33860 iin i2009.

Prostitution iand iTrafficking iof iWomen

Prostitution iitself iis inot irecognized ias ian ioffence iunder iany ilaw iin iIndia. iHowever ito iprevent
isexual iexploitation ifor icommercial ipurposes; ithe iact iof iprocurement, iinducing iand itaking

iaway iof iany iwoman, iwith iintention ito iexploit ifor ithe ipurpose iof iprostitution iis irecognized ias

ian ioffence iunder ithe iImmoral iTraffic i(Prevention),Act, i1956. iAn iadult iliving iin ithe iearnings

iof iprostitution imay ialso ibe iliable ifor icommitting ithat ioffence. iIn iGaurav iJain iv. iUnion iof

iIndia, ithe iSupreme iCourt ihas igiven icomprehensive iinstructions ito ithe igovernment ifor irescue

iand irehabilitation iof ichildren iof ithe iprostitutes iin ithe icountry.Cases iunder ithe iImmoral

iTraffic i(Prevention),Act, i1956 ihave iregistered ia idecline iof i6.9% iin ithe iyear i2009 ias

icompared ito ithe iprevious iyear.

Honour iKillings

Honour iKilling iis ithe imost igrotesque iand ibarbarous imanifestation iof igender idiscrimination iin
ithe imale-dominated isociety. iIn isuch ian iethos, iwoman iis ithe icommodity ipossessed iby ithe

imale iand ithe ifamily’s ihonour iis iassociated iwith iher. iIf ishe ideviates ifrom isocial imores, ishe iis

isupposed ito ibring idishonour ito ithe ifamily iwhose iprestige iis irestored iby ikilling iher.45 iAn

ihonour ikilling iis ithe imurder iof ia ifamily ior iclan imember iby ione ior imore ifellow ifamily
imembers, iwhen ithe ivictim ihas ibrought idishonour iupon ithe ifamily, iclan ior icommunity. iThe

iphenomenon iof ihonour ikilling iis iworldwide iand iit iis inot inew. iIn iIndia ialso ithe iphenomenon

iof ihonour ikilling iis icenturies iold. iThe ipractice iof ihonour ikilling iis iprevalent iin ia ifeudal iset

iup iwith itribal ihangover i- iHaryana, iDelhi irural iarea, iWestern iUttar iPradesh iand iPunjab iand

isome iareas iin iRajasthan inear iDelhi iand iin iIslamic icountries. iAbout i300 iwomen iare ikilled

ievery iyear iin iPakistan iand ithe icorresponding ifigure iin iBangladesh iis imore ithan i200. iYemen,

ia ismall icountry, ihad iabout i400 icases iof ihonour ikilling iin i1997. iAccording ito ione iestimate,

iabout i10 iper icent iof imurders iin iPunjab iand iHaryana ifalls iin ithe icategory iof ihonour ikilling.

iRecently iin ithe iState iof iHaryana imany icouples iwho imarried iagainst ithe iwishes ioftheir

iparents ior iwho imarried iwithin itheir igotras iare ikilled iby itheir ifamily imembers ior iby ithe

imembers iof ikhaps.

VICTIMOLOGY iAND iSOCIETY

Crime itakes ian ienormous iphysical, ifinancial iand iemotional itoll ion its ivictims. iBeing ia icrime
ivictim imay ihave iprofound ipsychological irepercussions. iThe iemotional iconcomitants iof

iserious icrime ican ibe imore idisruptive ithan ithe iloss iof iproperty ior iphysical injury, iwhich iare

icommonly iregarded ias ithe imost iunsetting iaspects iof icriminal ivictimization. iThe icrime iofrape

20
is iparticularly itraumatic.

iThe ishock, ianger, iand idepression ithat itypically iafflict ia irape ivictim, is iknown ias irape itrauma

isyndrome. iHow ipeople iare itreated iafter ia itraumatic ievent imay iwell iaffect ihow ithey irecover.

iAfter ia itraumatic ievent, ivictims iare itypically in igreat ineed iof isupport. iThey iare ilikely ito ibe

iextremely isensitive ito ihow iothers ireact ito ithem iand ihow ithey idescribe ior imake iattributions

iabout ithe ievent iand ithe irole ithe ivictim iplayed.

if ithese iascribed imeanings iare iperceived ias inegative ior iblaming, ithe ivictims’ iaversive

iresponses ito ire-experiencing ithe itrauma imay ibe intensified, ileading ito increased iattempts iat

iavoidance. iThe iextent ito iwhich ivictims’ iexperiences iare iconsensually ivalidated ior invalidated

20
iU.N iHandbook ifor iVictim iof iCrime isite iwww.unhcr.org ivisited ion i6th iJune i2008 iat i2:40PM. i
iby itheir ifamilies ior itheir isocietal imilieu imay ihave ian important ieffect ion itheir individual

21
ipsychological iadaptation ito ithe itraumatic istressor. i

The iattitude iof individuals is ialso important. iSome ipeople iwith iwhom ithe ivictim ihas icontact
i(e.g. ifamily, ifriends iand icolleagues) imay iwish ito idistance ithemselves ifrom ithe idistress iof ithe

icrime iby iblaming ithe ivictim ifor iwhat ihas ioccurred. iThey imay iview ithe ivictim’s ibehavior ias

ihaving icontributed ito, ior ieven icaused, ithe ivictimization. iThey imay ideny ithe impact iof ithe

icrime ion ithe ivictim iby iurging ithem ito iforget iabout ithe icrime iand iget ion iwith itheir ilives.

22
iFamilies ican ibe ia iparticularly ipowerful influence in ithis irespect.

International ireorganization iof iVictimology ias ia idistinct ibranch iof icriminology icame iwith ithe
ifirst international isymposium ion iVictimology, iheld in iJerusalem in i1973, iwhere ia iseries iof

ipapers ion ivictim icompensation, icrisis intervention, iand ithe iconcept iof ia ivictim iombudsman

iwere ipresented. iBy ithe iend iof ithe i1970s, ithose ideas iwere ireflected in ithe iestablishment iof

ivictim iservice iprograms isuch ias irape icrisis icenters, idomestic iviolence ishelters, iand ivictim-

witness iunits in ia inumber iof icountries including ithe iUnited iStates, iUnited iKingdom iand
iCanada.

Contribution iof iFamily, iFriends iand iNeighbours

iWhen isomeone is ivictimized, ithey imay ihave ia ivariety iof ineeds, iranging ifrom iserious iand

immediate issues isuch ias ihealing injuries isustained in ithe icommission iof ia iviolent icrime ito

21
iJournal iof iTraumatic iStress, iVol. i17, iNo. i4, iAugust i2004, ipp. i345-351 i( i2004) iSocial iAcknowledgment ias
ia iVictim ior iSurvivor: iA iScale ito iMeasure ia iRecovery iFactor iof iPTSD i- iAndreas iMaerckerl,2 iand iJulia
iMuller i1 iwww.springerlink.com/index ivisited ion i21st iJune i2008 iat i9:15AM.
22
iU.N. iHandbook ion iJustice ifor iVictims isite iwww.unhcr.org ivisited ion i6th iJune i2008 iat i2:40PM
ilesser issues isuch ias ineeding isomeone ito iwatch ithe ikids iwhile ithe ivictim igoes idown ito ithe

ipolice istation ior icourthouse. iMeeting imany ivictim ineeds itakes ispecialized iknowledge;

iproviding icivil ilegal iassistance ito ihelp ia idomestic iviolence ivictim ifile ifor idivorce ior ihelping

ia ivictim ifill iout ian iapplication ifor imonetary icompensation ifrom ithe istate, ifor ithese ikinds iof

ineeds, ivictims iturn ito isocial iservice iprograms.

But ifor ia ivariety iof iother ineeds, iranging ifrom iborrowing imoney ito igetting ia ibroken idoor
ifixed ito ijust ineeding isomeone ito italk ito, ivictims imost ifrequently iturn ito ifamily, ifriend iand

23
ineighbours.

iResearch istudies ihave ishown ithat ivictims ineed imany idifferent iforms iof iassistance. iSome

ineeds, ican ionly ibe imet iby iservice iprograms: iVictims ifiling iclaims ifor istate icompensation ior

idomestic iviolence ivictims ineeding ito igain ichild icustody ior ialter ithe iterms iof ivisitation ineed

ihelp ifrom itrained iprofessionals. iBut imany ineeds iare imundane. i

Victims imay ineed ia iride ito ithe idoctor, isomeone ito iwatch ithe ikids iwhile ithey igo ito icourt ior
ijust ia isympathetic iear ito ilisten ito itheir istory. iFor ithese ikinds iof ineeds, ifamily, ifriends,

ineighbors, iand ieven istrangers iare ioften ithe iclosest isource iof iassistance. in ifact, ivirtually iall

ivictims ireport, ireceiving isome iform iof iassistance ifrom iothers. i

Victims iare imost ilikely ito ireceive iemotional isupport iand ipractical iassistance ifrom ifriends,
ifamily iand iother imembers iof itheir isocial inetworks. iBut ineighbors i- ieven ithose inot iwell

iknown ito ivictims- ioften iare ithe iones iwho istay iwith ithe ivictim ior iwatch itheir ihome iand

ineighbors ias iwell ias ilandlords ifrequently ilend ifinancial iassistance ito ivictims.

23
iRobert iC. iDavis: iThe iKey iContributions iof iFamily, iFriends, iand iNeighbors in iRobert iC. iDavis, iLurigo,
iJ.Arthur iand iHerman, iSusan ieditors i- iVictims iof iCrime, ip.267, i3rd iedition, iSage iPublications, i2007
U.N. iEFFORTS iTO iADDRESS iVICTIM’S iISSUES

Fourth iUnited iNations iConference ion iWomen:-

iIn i1995, ithe iFourth iUnited iNations iConference ion iWomen iin iBeijing, iChina iwas ia

isignificant istep iforward iin ithe iinternational iarena ifor ivictims iof idomestic iviolence. iThe

iConference’s ifinal idocument, ithe iPlatform ifor iAction, iis ia ipowerful iand iprogressive

istatement iabout ithe iempowerment iof iwomen iand ithe iimperative ito ieliminate iviolence iagainst

iwomen iin iall iforms. iFormer ifirst ilady iHillary iRodham iClinton’s imessage iwas iheard iaround

ithe iglobe iwhen ishe isaid, i“It iis ia iviolation iof ihuman irights iwhen iindividual iwomen iare iraped

iin itheir icommunities iand iwhen ithousands iof iwomen iare isubjected ito irape ias ia itactic ior iprize

iof iwar. i

iIt iis ia iviolation iof ihuman irights iwhen ia ileading icause iof ideath iworldwide iamong iwomen
iages ifourteen ito iforty-four iis ithe iviolence ithey iare isubjected ito iin itheir iown ihomes. iIf ithere

iis ione imessage ithat iechoes iforth ifrom ithis iconference, iit iis ithat ihuman irights iare iwomen’s

irights.....and iwomen’s irights iare ihuman irights.”

Crime iPrevention iand iHuman iRights:-

iThe iwork iof ithe iUnited iNations iin ipreventing iabuse iof ipower iand iviolations iof ihuman

irights iis ilong-standing, iand iamong ithe iresults ihave ibeen ithe iUniversal iDeclaration iof iHuman

iRights, ithe iInternational iCovenant ion iCivil iand iPolitical iRights, ithe iConvention ion ithe

iPrevention iand iPunishment iof ithe iCrime iof iGenocide, ithe iConvention ion ithe iProtection iof

iAll iPersons ifrom iBeing iSubjected ito iTorture iand iother iCruel, iInhuman ior iDegrading

iTreatment ior iPunishment, ithe iConvention ion ithe iRights iof ithe iChild, iand ithe iConvention ion

iElimination iofAll iForms iofDiscrimination iAgainst iWomen. iThe iUnited iNations ihas ialso

ideveloped iinternational iguidelines ito ireduce iabuses iagainst ithe ielderly, ithe ihandicapped iand

ithe imentally iill, iand ihas idrafted ibasic iprinciples iand iguidelines ion ithe ireparation iof ivictims

iof igross iviolations iof ihuman irights iand ihumanitarian ilaw.

VICTIM iPROTECTION iUNDER iTHE iSTATUTE iOF iINTERNATIONAL iCRIMINAL
iCOURT i(ICC)

The iInternational iCriminal iCourt iStatute iwas iadopted ion i17 iJuly i1998 iat iRome iConference
iwhich iis ia ihistoric ievent iand iis ialso iraises ia inew iray iof ihope iin icompensatory ijurisprudence.

iStatute iof iICC iallows isupport, iprotection, ireparation, iparticipation iof ivictims iin iCriminal

iJustice iSystem. iRome iStatute idoes inot ilimit ithe irole iof ivictims ito ithat iof ia iwitness. iHence iit

igoes ifurther ithan iprevious iinternational icourts iand icreates ian iexample ifor inational

ijurisdictions.

iOne iof ithe igreat iinnovations iof ithe istatute iof iICC iand iits irules iof iprocedure iand ievidence iis

ithe iseries iof irights igranted ito ivictims. iFor ithe ifirst itime iin ithe ihistory iof iInternational

icriminal ijustice, ivictims ihave ithe ipossibility iunder ithe istatute ito ipresent itheir iviews iand

iobservations ibefore ithe icourt.

Participation

Participation ibefore ithe icourt imay ioccur iat ivarious istage iof iproceedings iand imay itake
idifferent iforms. iAlthough, iit iwill ibe iup ito ijudges ito igive idirections ias ito iparticipation.

iParticipation ito ithe icourt’s iproceedings iwill iin imost icases itake iplace ithrough ia ilegal

irepresentative iand iwill ibe iconducted iin ia imanner iwhich iis inot iprejudicial ior iinconsistent

iwith ithe irights iof ithe iaccused iand ia ifair iand iimpartial itrial. iVictims ican iparticipate iin iall

istages iof ithe iproceedings ibefore ithe icourt ii.e. iat ipre itrial istage. iVictim’s iparticipation iand

ireparation isection iis iresponsible ifor iassisting ivictims iwith ithe iorganization ioftheir iLegal

iRepresentatives ibefore ithis icourt.

Reparation

For ithe ifirst itime iin ithe ihistory iof ihumanity, ian iinternational icourt ihas ithe ipower ito iorder ian
iindividual ito ipay ireparation ito ithe iother iindividual. iIt iis ialso ithe ifirst itime ithat ian

iInternational iCriminal iCourt ihas isuch ipowers. iPursuant ito ithe iArticle i75, ithe icourt imay ilay

idown ithe iprinciples ifor ireparation ifor ivictims, iwhich imay iinclude irestitution, iindemnification

iand irehabilitation. iThe icourt imay iorder ithis ireparation ito ibe ipaid ithrough ithe ivictim’s ifund.

iFor ithis ivictim ihas ito ifile ia iwritten iapplication, ihe imay ialso iapply ifor iprotective imeasures

ifor ithe ipurposes iof iconfiscating iproperty ifrom ithe iperson iprosecuted. iThe icourt ihas ithe

ioption iof igranting iindividual ior icollective ireparation, iconcerning ia iwhole igroup iof ivictims ior

ia icommunity ior iboth. i

Trust iFund ifor iVictims

:- iA iTrust iFund iin ifavour iof ivictims ihas ibeen icreated iby iRome iStatute iwhich imay icollect
ifunds iresulting ifrom ifines iand iorders ifor icompensation iissued iagainst icondemned ipersons ias

iwell ias ivoluntary icontributions ifrom iGovernments, iInternational iOrganization, icorporations

ior iindividuals. iThe ipurpose iof ithe ifund iis ito ichannel imoney ito ivictims. iSometimes ithis iwill

ibe imoney ithat ithe icourt iorders ian ioffender ito ipay ias icompensation. iFunds ican ibe iallocated

ieither ito iindividuals ior ito ia icollective igroup iof ipersons. iProviding ijustice ito ivictims iis

iimportant ibut iso itoo iis iproviding ithem iwith ihelp iand icompensation ito ienable ithem ito irebuild

itheir ishattered ilives.

Victims iand iWitness iProtection

iLearning ifrom ithe iexperience iof itwo iadhoc iInternational iPenal iTribunals, iArticle i43

iParagraph i6 iof ithe iStatute ihas iforeseen ithat ithe iRegistrar ishall isetup ia ivictims iand iwitnesses

iunit iwithin ithe iRegistry. iThis iunit ishall iprovide iin iconsultation iwith ithe ioffice iof ithe

iprosecutor, icounselling iand iother iappropriate iassistance ifor iwitnesses, ivictims iwho iare iat irisk
ion iaccount iof itestimony igiven iby isuch iwitnesses ias iwell ias iplan iprotective imeasures iand

isecurity iarrangements ifor ithem. iThe iUnit ishall iinclude istaff iwith iexpertise iin itrauma,

iincluding itrauma irelated ito icrimes iof isexual iviolence.

iThus ithe iUnit ishall iin iparticular iensure ithe iprotection iand isecurity iof iall iwitnesses iand

ivictims ithat iappear ibefore ithe icourt ithrough iappropriate imeasures iand iestablish ishort iand

ilong iterms iplans ifor itheir iprotection. iUnit ishall ihelp ivictims iwho iappear ibefore ithe icourt ias

iwell ias iwitnesses ito ireceive imedical iand ipsychological icare.

It ishall ialso ibe iincharge iof ithe inegotiation iof iagreements iwith istates iconcerning ithe
iresettlement ion istate iterritory iof iwitnesses ior ivictims ithat iare itraumatized ior ithreatened.

iHence iICC ihas itaken irevolutionary imeasures iin ithe iinterest iof ivictims iof icrime iat

iinternational ilevel iand ihas iset ian iexample ifor inations ito ifollow iat inational ilevel.

VICTIMOLOGY: iCONSTITUTIONAL iAND iLEGISLATIVE iFRAME iWORK iIN

iINDIA

Victimology i: iConstitutional iFramework iin iIndia

i“The iarch iof ithe iConstitution iof iIndia ipregnant ifrom iits ipreamble, ichapter iIII i(Fundamental

iRights) iand ichapter iIV i(Directive iPrinciples)is ito iestablish ian iegalitarian isocial iorder

iguaranteeing ifundamental ifreedoms iand ito isecure ijustice-social ieconomic iand ipolitical ito

ievery icitizen ithrough irule iof ilaw. iExisting isocial iinequalities iare ineeded ito ibe iremoved iand

iequality iin ifact iis iaccorded ito iall ipeople iirrespective iof icaste, icreed, isex, ireligion ior iregion

24
isubject ito iprotective idiscrimination ionly ithrough irule iof ilaw.”

Preamble ito iour i“suprema ilex” icontains igoals ito ibe iachieved iby ithe istate iwhich iinter-alia
italks iabout isocial, ieconomic iand ipolitical ijustice. iThese iobjectives ihave ibeen itranslated iinto

24
iC. iRavichandran iTyer iV. iJustice iA.M. iBhattacharjee i(1995) i5 iSCC i457, i(para i14)
ifundamental irights ienshrined iin iPart iIII iof ithe iConstitution iand iDirective iPrinciples iof iState

iPolicy. iPart iIII iof ithe iConstitution iweaves ia ipattern iof iguarantee ifor ithe ivictims iof ithe

icrime. iTo imake ithis iguarantee imeaningful iArticle i32 iof ithe iConstitution iprovides ieffective

ienforcement iofthese irights. iThe ijudiciary ithrough ijudicial iactivism ihas iwidened ithe iscope iof

ithese ifundamental irights iby iusing ibroad iambit iof ithese iprovisions ito isecure ijustice ifor ithe

ivictims iof icrime.

One iofthe itools iapplied iby ithe icourt ifor isecuring ijustice ito ithe ivictims iand ifor iensuring ithat
ithese ifundamental irights ido inot ibecome ia imere irope iof isand iis ito igrant imonetary

icompensation ito ithem. iThis iensures ithe idignity iof ithe iindividual iin ia isocialistic iset iup

iepitomizing irestorative ijustice.

iFirst iof iall iArticle i14 iof ithe iConstitution iembodies igeneral iprinciples iof iequality ibefore ilaw

iand iprohibits iunreasonable idiscrimination. iThis iis ithe imost ibasic ifundamental iright

iguaranteed ito ievery iperson iby iConstitution iitself iand ithe iword i‘any iperson’ iin iArticle i14

ivery iwell icovers ivictims iof icrime. i

In iE.P. iRoyappa iv. iState iof iT.N.25Supreme iCourt igave ia inew idimension ito iequality iprinciple.
iIt ipointed iout ithat iArticle i14 ihas ihighly iactivist imagnitude. iCourt iheld ithat iequality iis ia

idynamic iconcept iwith imany iaspects iand idimensions iand iit ican’t ibe icribbed, icabined iand

iconfined iwithin itraditional iand idoctrinaire ilimits. iFrom ia ipositivistic ipoint iof iview iequality

iand iarbitrariness iare isworn ienemies: ione ibelongs ito ithe irule iof ilaw iin ia irepublic iwhile ithe

iother ito ithe iwhim iand icaprice iof ian iabsolute imonarch iwhere ian iact iis iarbitrary, iit iis iimplicit

iin iit ithat iit iis iunequal iboth iaccording ito ithe ipolitical ilogic iand iConstitutional ilaw iand iis

itherefore iviolative iof iArticle i i14.

It imay ibe itherefore inoted ithat ithe idoctrine iof ireasonable iclassification ibased ion inexus itest iis
ino ilonger ia iparaphrase iof iArticle i14 inor iit iis ithe iobjective iand iend iof iArticle i14. iThe

iemphasis iis inow ion ithe irule ithat iArticle i14 istrikes iat iarbitrariness. iThe inew iapproach ito

iArticle i14 ihas inow ibeen iconsistently iadopted iand iapplied iby ithe icourts iin idetermining ithe

itrue icontents iand ireach iof iequalizing iprinciple. i

25
AIR i1974 iSC i555
In ia ilandmark ijudgment iLucknow iDevelopment iAuthority iv. iM.K. iGupta26Supreme iCourt
iheld ithat iif iloss ior iinjury iis icaused ito ia icitizen iby ithe iarbitrary iactions iof ithe iState

iemployees, ithe iState iis iliable ito ipay icompensation ito ihim. iPublic iauthorities iwho iare

ientrusted iwith istatutory ifunctions icannot iact inegligently. iUnder iour iConstitution isovereignty

iis ivested iin ithe ipeople. iEvery ilimb iofthe iconstitutional imachinery iis iobliged ito ibe ipeople

ioriented.

In icase iof iCharan iLai iSahu iv. iU.O.I.27 ithe iConstitutional ivalidity iof iBhopal igas ileak idisaster
i(processing iof iclaims) iAct, i1985 iwas ichallenged. iThe icourt iheld ithat iAct iis ivalid ias ithe istate

iin ia icapacity iof i‘parenspatrie’ i(parent iof ithe icountry) ifor iprotecting idisabled ivictims iof

iBhopal igas idisaster iis icompetent ito irepresent ithe ivictims.

In ithis ilandmark icase iof iVishaka iv. iState iof iRajasthan28 iSupreme iCourt ilaid idown iexhaustive
iguidelines ito iprevent isexual iharassment iof iworking iwomen iat itheir iwork iplaces iuntil

ilegislation, iis ienacted ifor ithe ipurpose. iThe icourt iheld ithat iit iis ithe iduty iof iemployer ior iother

iresponsible iperson iin iwork iplaces ior iother iinstitutions, iwhether ipublic ior iprivate ito iprevent

isexual iharassment iof iworking iwomen.

VICTIMOLOGY i: iLEGISLATIVE iFRAMEWORK iIN iINDIA

The iCode iof iCriminal iProcedure, i1973

The iCode iof iCriminal iProcedure iis ithe ifirst iand iprobably ithe ioldest ilegislation iin iIndia ito
ideal iwith ithe iconcept iof icompensation ito ithe ivictims iof icrime. iThough ithe ivictimological

iaspect iunder ithe iCode iis iof ilimited ipurport iand iis iconfined ito icompensation ionly ibut iit ihas

idefinitely iproved ithe iway ifor iimproving ithe iprinciples iof icompensatory ijurisprudence. i

26
i(1994) i1 iSCC i243
27
i(1990) i1 iSCC i663
28
iAIR i1997 iSC i3011
The iCode iof iCriminal iProcedure iis ibased ion ithe iprinciple iof ipresumption iof iinnocence
ithough ithere iare ivarious iprovisions iin ithe iCriminal iProcedure iCode ifor iproviding ijustice ito

ivictims iof icrime. iBut ithese iprovisions iare iscattered iall iover ithe iCriminal iProcedure iCode.

iIn ipursuance iof ithe irecommendations iof ithe iLaw iCommission iof iIndia iin iits i41st ireport43 ia

icomprehensive ischeme ifor icompensation ito ithe ivictims iof icrime ihas ibeen imade iin isection

i357 iand isection i357A iof iCriminal iProcedure iCode. iBesides ithese itwo isections, iother isections

ilike i358, i359, i237, i250 ialso ideal iwith icompensation ito ivictims iof icrime. iOther iprovisions

iwhich iare iimportant ifrom ithe iaspect iof iVictimology iare iproviso ito isection i24(8), iSections

i320, i327, i378, i397, i473, i482, i437(5), iand i439(2). i

Right iof iVictim ito iEngage iAdvocate iof ihis ior iher iChoice
The icourt imay ipermit ithe ivictim ito iengage iadvocate iof ihis/her ichoice ito iassist ithe iSpecial
29
iPublic iProsecutor.

COMPOUNDING iOF iOFFENCES

A icrime iis iconsidered ia iwrong iagainst ithe isociety iand ithe iState. iTherefore iany icompromise
ibetween ithe iaccused iperson iand ithe iindividual ivictim iof ithe icrime ishould inot iabsolve ithe

iaccused ifrom icriminal iresponsibility. iHowever, iwhere ithe ioffences iare iessentially iof ia

iprivate inature iand irelatively inot ivery iserious, ithe iCode iconsiders iit iexpedient ito irecognize

isome iof ithem ias icompoundable ioffences iand isome iothers ias icompoundable ionly iwith ithe

ipermission iof ithe icourt. iWhile igranting ipermission ito icompound ian ioffence ithe icourt ishould

30
iact ijudicially iand ishould iexercise ia isound iand ireasonable idiscretion.

29
Proviso ito iSection i24 i(8) iinserted.by ithe iCode iof iCriminal iProcedure i(Amendment) iAct, i2008
30
Rameshchandra iJ. iThakkar iv. iAssandas iParmanand iJhaveri, i(1973) i3SCC884
The isafeguard iof ithe icourt’s ipermission iis ito iprevent ian iabuse iof ithe iright ito icompound iand
ito ienable ithe icourt ito itake iinto iaccount ithe ispecial icircumstances iof ithe icase iwhich imay

ijustify icomposition. iWhile igranting ipermission ito ienter iinto ithe icomposition iand iaccepting

ithe isame, ithe ichastened iattitude iof ithe iaccused iand ithe icommendable iattitude iof ithe iinjured

icomplainant, iin iorder ito irestore iharmony iin iA isociety, iwere itaken iinto iconsideration iby ithe

icourt.

iIn icase iof inon-compoundable ioffence iwhich iare inot imentioned iunder isection i320, iCriminal

iProcedure iCode. iThe iCourt ishould iconsider ifacts iand icircumstances iof ieach icase iand iallow

ithe iparties ito icompromise ithereby ito irestore ian iamicable iand iharmonious irelationship

ibetween ithe iparties iwhich iotherwise iwould ilikely ito iresult iin ian ienduring ifeud ihowever isuch

31
ioffences imust inot iseriously iaffect ithe iinterest iof ithe ipublic iat ilarge.

Right ito iIn-camera iTrial

Court imust ibe iopen ito ianyone iwho imay ilike ito ihear ithe iproceedings iof ithe icourt ialthough
ithe iactual ipresence iof ithe igeneral ipublic iis inot iessential ito ifulfill ithe irequirement iof ithe

isection. iThis igeneral iprinciple iwas iembodied iin ithis ito iensure iadministration iof ijustice iwith

ithe iprovision igiving ithe ipresiding ijudge ior ithe iMagistrate iat iany iparticular iperson ideciding

32
iupon ithe ifacts iand icircumstances iof ithe icase ifor ithe iends iof ijustice.

The iSupreme iCourt ihas ilaid idown ithat itrial iof isexual ioffences imust ibe iconducted iin icamera
iand iit iwould inot ibe ipermissible ito iprint ior ipublish iany imatter iin irelation ito iit iexcept iwith

ithe iprevious ipermission iof ithe icourt. iOffences iunder iSection i376 iand iSections i376A ito i376D

iof ithe iIndian iPenal iCode ishall ibe itried ias ifar ias ipracticable iby ia icourt ipresided iover iby ia

iwoman.

Victim ihas ia iRight ito iAppeal iin iCase iof iAcquittal iof iAccused iPerson

31
Baiju iV. iSub iInspector iof ipolice i, iKarimanoor iPolice iStation iand ianother, i2007 iCriLJ i1346 i(kerala)
32
iNaresh iv. iState iof iMaharashtra, iAIR i1967 iSC i1
Appeal iagainst ithe iorder iof iacquittal iis ian iextraordinary iremedy. iSection i378 ideals iwith
iappeals iin icases iof iacquittals. iAccording ito ithe ifirst ifour isub-sections iof isection i378, ian

iappeal iagainst ian iorder iof iacquittal ican ibe ipreferred iby ithe iGovernment, iin ia icase iinstituted

iupon icomplaint, iby ithe iGovernment ias iwell ias iby ithe icomplainant. i

The iword icomplainant iused iin isection i378(4) icannot ibe igiven ia irestricted imeaning iand
icannot ibe iconstructed iso ias ito iexclude ithe ivictim ior ithe isufferer iand iwho ihad ifaster

iinformation iof ithe ioccurrence. iAccordingly, ion ithe ideath iof ithe icomplainant ibefore ifiling iof

iappeal iorder iof iacquittal, ithe ivictim iand ieye-witnesses iof ioffence iare i_ i— icompetent ito ifile

33
iappeal iand icontinue iwith ithe iproceedings. iIn iKeshav iSwaroop iv. iGovernment iof iN.C.T. ithe

iSupreme iCourt isaid ithat iwhere ithere iis iglaring idefect ior imanifest ierror iin ipoint iof ilaw, iin

iexceptional icases, iHigh iCourt ican iallow ia iprivate iparty ito ifile iappeal iagainst iacquittal.

Right iof iRevision

High iCourt ior iSessions iJudge imay icall ifor iand iexamine ithe irecord iof iany iproceeding ibefore
iany iinferior icriminal icourt isituate iwithin iit ior ihis ilocal ijurisdiction ifor ithe ipurpose iof

isatisfying iitself ior ihimself; ito ithe icorrectness, ilegality ior ipropriety iof iany ifinding, isentence

ior iorder, irecorded ior ipassed, iand ias ito ithe iregularity iof iany iproceedings iof isuch iinferior

34
icourt. iThe iSessions iCourt ican ienhance isentence iin iexercise iof iits irevisional ijurisdiction.

Revision iagainst iacquittal- iRevisional iapplication ifiled iby ithe icomplainant iagainst ithe iorder
iof iacquittal ipassed iby itrial icourt iin ia ipolice icase ican ibe iexercised ionly iin iexceptional icases

ifor ilimited ipurposes, iwhere ithe iinterest iof ipublic ijustice irequires iinterference ifor icorrection

iof imanifest iillegality ior ito iprevent imiscarriage iof ijustice. i

Where iit iwas ifound ithat ithe itrial icourt ihad ifailed ito isummon ithe ieye-witnesses ipresent iat ithe
itime iof iincident ias iwell ias ithe iworkers iat ipower ihouse, itherefore, iit iwas iheld ithat ithe

iacquittal iof iaccused iwas iunmerited ias iit iwas ibased ipm itainted ievidence, itailored

33
iAIR i1998 iSC i999
34
iSection i397 iofthe iCriminal iProcedure iCode, i1973
iinvestigation, iunprincipled iprosecution, iperfunctory itrial iand ion ievidence iof ithreatened iand

35
iterrorized iwitnesses, iso iretrial iof ithe icase iwas iordered iin ithe iinstance icase.

Right ito iCancellation iof iBail

The icourt iwhich ihas ireleased ia iperson ion ibail imay, iif iit iconsiders iit inecessary iso ito ido,
idirect ithat isuch iperson ibe iarrested iand icommitted ito icustody. iThe icourt ihas ipower iand

idiscretion ito icancel ithe ibail.

Right ito iCompensation

Section i357 iprovides ian iinnovative ischeme ifor icompensating ithe ivictims iof icrime iout iof ithe
ifine irecovered ifrom ithe iconvict. iThe iconcerned icourt, iat ithe itime iof ipassing ijudgment imay

iorder ithe idisposal iof ithe iwhole ior ipartial ifine iamount ifor ithe ifollowing ipurposes:-

i(a) iIt icould ibe iused ifor idefraying ithe iexpenses iproperly iincurred iin ithe iprosecution iof ithe

icase

(b) iSuch iamount icould ialso ibe iused ifor icompensating ithe ivictim iof iany iloss ior iinjury icaused
iby ithe ioffence iif ithe icourt ifeels ithat isuch ivictim iis icompetent ito irecover icompensation ifor

ithe isame iin ia icivil icourt. i

(c) iIn icase ifor iconviction ifor icausing ideath iof ianother iperson ior iabetment ithereof icourt imay
iorder ithat ithe ifine irecovered ishould ibe ipaid ias icompensation ito ithe ipersons iwho iare ientitled

ito irecover idamages ifrom ithe iconvict ias iper iFatal iAccidents iAct, i1885. i

(d) iIn icase iof icertain ispecified ioffences iagainst iproperty isuch ias itheft, icriminal ibreach iof
itrust ietc. iif ithe iproperty iis irestored ito ithe ilawful iowner, ithe icourt imay iorder ithat ithe

ibonafide ipurchaser iof ithe iproperty, ishould ibe icompensated iout iof ithe ifine iamount irecovered.

Section i357(3) iconfers iwider ipowers ion ithe icourt ito igrant icompensation ias icompared ito
isection i357(1). iHowever ithe iliberal iprovisions iof isection i357(3) iare iapplicable ionly iif ia

isentence iof ifine iis iimposed. iIn isuch icases ithe icourt imay iorder ithe iaccused iperson ito ipay

35
Chandrabhan iand ianother iV. iState iof iRajasthan i2007 iCriLJ i(NOC) i470 i(Raj.)
isuch iamount ias icourt iwill ispecify iin ithe iorder ias icompensation ito ithe ivictim iwho ihas

isuffered iloss ior iinjury.

In iSarwan iSingh iv. iState iof iPunjab36, iSupreme iCourt iheld ithat iobject iof isection i357 iis ito
iprovide icompensation ito ithe ipersons iwho iare ientitled ito irecover idamages ifrom ithe iperson

isentenced ieven ithough ifine idoes inot iform ipart iof ithe isentence.

In iawarding icompensation iit iis inecessary ifor ithe icourt ito idecide iwhether ithe icase iis ifit ifor
iawarding icompensation. iIf iit iis ifound ithat icompensation ishould ibe ipaid, ithen ithe icapacity iof

ithe iaccused ito ipay icompensation, ihas ito ibe idetermined. iIn idirecting icompensation ithe iobject

iis ito icollect iit iand ipay iit ito ithe ivictim, ifor iimposing ia idefault isentence ifor inon-payment iof

37
ifine iwould inot iachieve ithe iobject. i

Further iit iwas istated ithat iit iis iduty iofthe icourt ito itake iinto iaccount ithe inature iof icrime, ithe
iinjury isuffered, ithe ijustness iofthe iclaim ifor icompensation, ithe icapacity iof iaccused ito ipay iand

iother irelevant icircumstances iin ifixing ithe iamount ioffine ior icompensation.

Victim iCompensation iScheme

The iFourteenth iLaw iCommission, iwhen ithe iCriminal iProcedure iCode i(Amendment) iBill,
i1994 iwas iintroduced iin ithe iRajya iSabha iand iwhen iit iwas ipending ibefore ithe iParliamentary

iCommittee, iwas irequested iby ithe iCentral iGovernment ito iundertake ia icomprehensive ireview

iofthe iCriminal iProcedure iCode iof i1973 iand ito imake isuitable iproposals ifor ireform.

iThe iLaw iCommission, iamong iother ithings, iidentified i‘Victimology iand iCompensating

iVictims’ ifor iits ideliberation, iexhibiting iits isincere iconcern ifor ivictims iof icrimes iand

ijustifying ithe ineeds ito i‘redesign iand irestructure’ ithe ivictim- icompensatory ilegislative

iparadigm iin iIndia

36
iAIR i1978 iSC i1525
37
ibid
Increasingly ithe iattention iof icriminologists, ipenologists iand ireformers iof icriminal ijustices
isystem ihas ibeen idirecting ito ivictimology, icontrol iof ivictimization iand iprotection iof ivictims

iof icrimes.Crimes ioften ientail isubstantive iharm ito ipeople iand inot imerely isymbolic iharm ito

ithe isocial iorder. iConsequently, ithe ineeds iand irights iof ivictims iof icrime ishould ireceive

ipriority iattention iin ithe itotal iresponse ito icrime. iOne irecognized imethod iof iprotection iof

ivictim iis icompensation ito ivictim iof icrime.

Referring ito ithe ipayment iof icompensation iunder ithe iprovision iof isection i357 iof ithe iCriminal
iProcedure iCode iand iexpressing iits ireservations iabout ithe iefficacy iof istatutory iprovisions iand

irecalling iits imeagre iuse iby icourts iin iIndia, ithe iLaw iCommission iasserted ithat ithe iprinciples

iof icompensation ito ivictim iof icrime ineed ito ibe ireviewed iand iexpanded ito icover iall icases. i

Compensation ishould inot ibe ilimited ionly ito ifines, ipenalties iand iforfeitures irealised ibut ithe
iState, iit iasserted, ishould ialso irender iits iassistance itovictims iof icrimes iout iof iits iown ifunds iin

iall icases iregardless iof ithe ifact iwhether ian iaccused iis iacquitted ior ithe iperpetrator iis inot

itraced(but ithe ivictims iis iidentified i) ior iwhen ithe ioffence iis iproved. iThe iState’s iresponsibility

ito imake ireparation ito icrime ivictims ican ibe ijustified ion ihumanitarian, icompassionate, iand

ilegal igrounds. iThe iState iis ialso iunder ia isort iof ilegal iobligation ito icompensate ivictims iof

icrimes, iwho isuffered ibecause iof ifailure ion ithe ipart iofthe istate ito: imaintain ilaw iand iorder:

iensure ipeace, iharmony iand itranquility iin isociety; iprotect ipeople iand itheir iproperty; iand iuse

iits iauthority ito isuppress icrime iand ipunish ioffenders, iCompensation ifrom ithe iState ican ialso

ibe ijustified ion ithe iground ithat ithe istate isystem, inamely iits ipolitical, ieconomic iand isocial

iinstitutions, igenerates icrime iby ipoverty, idiscrimination, iunemployment iand iinsecurity. iThe

38
ivictim iof isuch ia isystem, itherefore ideserve icompensation ifrom ithe iState.

Victim iCompensation iScheme i( ipenal iprovisions)39

38
iFourteenth iLaw iCommission iReport i-Chapter iXV i: iVictimology
39
iSection i357A iof ithe iCode iof iCriminal iProcedure iinserted iby ithe iCode iof iCriminal iProcedure i(Amendment)
iAct, i2008 iand icame iinto iforce ion i31st iday iof iDecember i2009
(1) iEvery istate iGovernment iin icoordination iwith ithe icentral iGovernment ishall iprepare ia
ischeme ifor iproviding ifunds ifor ithe ipurpose iof icompensation ito ithe ivictim ior ihis idependents

iwho ihave isuffered iloss ior iinjury ias ia iresult iof ithe icrime iand iwho irequire irehabilitation. i

(2) iWhenever, ia irecommendation iis imade iby ithe icourt ifor icompensation, ithe iDistrict iLegal
iService iAuthority ior ithe iState iLegal iService iAuthority, ias ithe icase imay ibe, ishall idecide ithe

iquantum iof icompensation ito ibe iawarded iunder ithe ischeme ireferred ito iin isub-section( i1). i

(3) iIf ithe itrial icourt, iat ithe iconclusion iof ithe itrial, iis isatisfied, ithat ithe icompensation iawarded
iunder isection i357 iis inot iadequate ifor isuch irehabilitation, ior iwhere ithe icases iend iin iacquittal

ior idischarge iand ithe ivictim ihas ito ibe irehabilitated, iit imay imake ia irecommendation ifor

icompensation.

i(4) iWhere ithe ioffender iis inot itraced ior iidentified, ibut ithe ivictim iis iidentified, iand iwhere ino

itrial itakes iplace, ithe ivictim ior ihis idependents imay imake ian iapplication ito ithe istate ior ithe

iDistrict iLegal iServices iAuthority ifor iaward iof icompensation. i

(5) iOn ireceipt iof isuch irecommendation ior ion ithe iapplication iunder isub isection i(4), ithe iState
ior ithe iDistrict ilegal iServices iAuthority ishall, iafter idue ienquiry iaward iadequate icompensation

iby icompleting ithe ienquiry iwithin itwo imonths. i

(6) iThe istate ior ithe iDistrict iLegal iservices iAuthority, ias ithe icase imay ibe, ito ialleviate ithe
isuffering iof ithe ivictim, imay iorder ifor iimmediate ifirst-aid ifacility ior imedical ibenefits ito ibe

imade iavailable ifree iof icost ion ithe icertificate iof ithe ipolice iofficer inot ibelow ithe irank iofthe

iofficer-in-charge iofthe ipolice istation ior ia iMagistrate iof ithe iarea iconcerned, ior iany iother

iinterim irelief ias ithe iappropriate iauthority ideems ifit”.

The iImmoral iTraffic i(Prevention) iAct, i1956

Trafficking iin ihuman ibeings iviolates ithe ibasic ihuman irights iof ithe iaffected

persons iand ileads ito itheir iexploitation iin imany iways. iHuman ibeings iare itrafficked ifor

various ipurposes isuch ias ifor iworking iin imines, iin ihazardous iindustries, ias idomestic
servants iand ifor iimmoral ipurposes. iThe ievil iof iimmoral itrafficking iis ieroding isocial

values iand idigging iinto ithe ivery ifoundation iof ihuman icivilization. iIt ireduces ithe iwoman

to ithe ilevel iof ia icommodity iavailable ifor ia iprice. iImmoral itrafficking iin iwomep,has ibeen

in iprevalence iin iIndia isince iancient iperiod. iMost iof ithe itrafficked iwomen iand igirls iare

sold iin iflesh imarket ifor iprostitution. iThis iimmoral ipractice iof ibuying iand iselling iwomen

and iconverting ithem iinto iprostitutes idegrades ithem ito isuch ia ilevel ithat ithese ihelpless

women ivery irarely ithink iof icoming iout iof ithe iprostitution idens, iknown ias ired i- ilight

areas, ito ilead ia inormal ilife. iHealth ihazards iof iprostitutes iare ia inormal iphenomenon.

Frequent ipregnancies, iabortions iby iimproper imeans iand igetting iaffected iby ivenereal

diseases idemoralize ithem iin isuch ian iextent ithat ithey ifind isolace iin ialcohol iand idrugs,

spread iof iHIV ihas ifurther iincreased itheir imiseries.40

Punishment ifor iliving ion ithe iearnings iof iProstitution

It iis ia ihard ifact ithat ia ilargenumber iof ipersons, iboth imen iand iwomen, irun ibrothels iand ilive
ion ithe iearnings iof itheprostitution, iwith ia iview ito icurbing ithis itrend, ithe ilegislature ihas

iprescribed ipunishmentfor iliving ion ithe iearnings iof ithe iprostitution.

The iAct iprovides ithat iany iperson iover ithe iage iof ieighteen iyears iwho iknowingly

lives, iwholly ior iin ipart, ion ithe iearnings iof ithe iprostitution iof iany iother iperson ishall ibe

punishable iwith iimprisonment ifor ia iterm iwhich imay iextend ito itwo iyears, ior iwith ifine

which imay iextend ito ione ithousand irupees, ior iwith iboth, iand iwhere isuch iearnings irelate

to ithe iprostitution iof ia ichild, ishall ibe ipunishable iwith iimprisonment ifor ia iterm iof inot iless
40
Women iand ithe iLaw iby iDr. iDalbir iBharti iAPH iPublishing iCorporation iNew iDelhi, ipp. i151
han iseven iyears iand inot imore ithan iten iyears.

It ifurther iprovides ithat iwhere iany iperson iover ithe iage iof ieighteen iyears iis iproved,-

(a) ito ibe iliving iwith, ior ito ibe ihabitually iin ithe icompany iof, ia iprostitute; ior

(b) ito ihave iexercised icontrol, idirection ior iinfluence iover ithe imovements iof ia

prostitute iin isuch ia imanner ias ito ishow ithat isuch iperson iis iaiding iabetting ior

compelling iher iprostitution; ior

(c) ito ibe iacting ias ia itout ior ipimp ion ibehalf iof ia iprostitute, iit ishall ibe ipresumed, iuntil

the icontrary iis iproved, ithat isuch iperson iis iknowingly iliving ion ithe iearnings iof41prostitution
42
iof ianother iperson iwithin ithe imeaning iof isub-section i(1).

Punishment iis iprovided ifor iprocuring, iinducing ior itaking iperson ifor ithe isake iof

prostitution iunder isection i5 iof ithe iAct. iAnd iperson ishall ibe ipunishable ion iconviction

with irigorous iimprisonment ifor ia iterm iof inot iless ithan ithree iyears iand inot imore ithan

seven iyears iand ialso iwith ifine iwhich imay iextend ito itwo ithousand irupees, iand iif iany

offence iunder ithis isub-section iis icommitted iagainst ithe iwill iof iany iperson, ithe

punishment iof iimprisonment ifor ia iterm iof iseven iyears ishall iextend ito iimprisonment ifor ia

term iof ifourteen iyears iand iif ithe iperson iin irespect iof iwhom ian ioffence icommitted iunder

this isubsection, iis ia ichild, ithe ipunishment iprovided iunder ithis isub-section ishall iextend ito

rigorous iimprisonment ifor ia iterm iof inot iless ithan iseven iyears ibut imay iextend ito ilife.

Protective ihome ior iprovided icare iand iprotection iby iCourt

41
Section i4( i1) iof ithe iImmoral iTraffic i(Prevention) iAct, i1956
42
Section i4(3) iof ithe iImmoral iTraffic i(Prevention) iAct, i1956
Sections i19 iand i21 iofthe iAct ideal iwith ithe imatters iof iprotective ihomes iand iprovided icare
iand iprotection iby ithe icourt. iA iperson iwho iis icarrying ion, ior iis ibeing imade ito icarry ion

iprostitution, imay imake ian iapplication, ito ithe iMagistrate iwithin ithe ilocal ilimits ito iwhose

ijurisdiction ishe iis icarrying ion, ior iis ibeing imade ito icarry ion iprostitution, ifor ian iorder ithat ishe

imay ibe- i(a) ikept iin ia iprotective ihome, ior i(b) iprovided icare iand iprotection iby ithe icourt iin

ithe imanner ispecified iin ithe iAct. iOn isuch ia irequest ithe iMagistrate imay ipending iinquiry idirect

ithat ithe iperson ibe ikept iin isuch icustody ias ihe imay iconsider iproper, ihaving iregard ito ithe

43
icircumstances iofthe icase.

If ithe iMagistrate iafter ihearing ithe iapplicant iand imaking isuch iinquiry ias ihe imay iconsider
inecessary, iincluding ian iinquiry iby ia iProbation iOfficer iappointed iunder ithe iProbation iof

iOffender iAct, i1958, i(20 iof i1958) iinto ithe ipersonality, iconditions iof ihome iand iprospects iof

irehabilitation iof ithe iapplicant, iis isatisfied ithat ian iorder ishould ibe imade iunder ithis isection, ihe

ishall ifor ireasons ito ibe irecorded, imake ian iorder ithat ithe iapplicant ito ibe ikept iin ia iprotective

ihome, ior iin ia icorrective iinstitution, ior iunder ithe isupervision iof ia iperson iappointed iby ia

iMagistrate ifor isuch iperiod ias imay ibe ispecified iin ithe iorder.

The iState iGovernment imay iin iits idiscretion iestablish ias imany iprotective ihomes iand
icorrective iinstitutions iunder ithis iAct ias iit ithinks ifit iand isuch ihomes iand iinstitutions iwhen

iestablished ishall ibe imaintained iin isuch imanner ias imay ibe iprescribed.

Rehabilitation iof iRescued iProstitutes:-

44
The iSupreme iCourt iof iIndia iin iGaurav iJain iv. iUnion iof iIndia i igave idirections ifor ithe

irehabilitation iof ithe ivictims iof ithe iprostitution. iCourt isaid iit iis ithe iduty iof ithe iState iand iall

ivoluntary inon-government iorganizations iand ipublic ispirited ipersons ito icome iinto itheir iaid ito

iretrieve ithem ifrom iprosecution, irehabilitate ithem iwith ia ihelping ihand ito ilead ia ilife iwith

43
iSection i19 iofthe iImmoral iTraffic i(Prevention) iAct, i1956
44
iAIR i1997 iSC i3021
idignity iof iperson, iself-employment ithrough iprovisions iof ieducation, ifinancial isupport,

ideveloped imarketing ifacilities ias isome iof imajor iavenues iin ithis ibehalf.

Marriage iis ianother iimportant iobject ito igive ithem ireal istatus iin isociety. iHousing, ilegal iaid,
ifree icounseling, iassistance iand iall iother isimilar iaids iand iservices iare imeaningful imeasures ito

iensure ithat iunfortunate ifallen iwomen ido inot iagain ifall iinto ithe itrap iof ired ilight iarea

icontaminated iwith ifoul iatmosphere. iEconomic irehabilitation iis ione iof ithe ifactors ithat iprevent

ithe ipractice iof idedication iof ithe iyoung igirls ito ithe iprostitution ias iDevadasis, iJogins ior

iVenkatasins. iTheir ieconomic iempowerment iand ieducation igives iresistance ito isuch

iexploitation ihowever, ieconomic iprogrammes iare inecessary ito irehabilitate isuch ivictims iof

icustoms ior ipractices.

The irescue iand irehabilitation iof ithe ichild iprostitutes iand ichildren ishould ibe ikept iunder ithe
inodal idepartment, inamely, iDepartment iof iWomen iand iChild iDevelopment, iunder ithe

iMinistry iof iWelfare iand iHuman iResource, iGovernment iof iIndia. iIt iwould idevice isuitable

ischemes ifor iproper iand ieffective iimplementation. i

The iinstitutional icare, ithus iwould ifunction ias ian ieffective irehabilitation ischeme iin irespect iof
ithe ifallen iwomen ior ithe ichildren iof ifallen iwomen ieven iif ithey ihave icrossed ithe iage

iprescribed iunder ithe iJuvenile iJustice iAct. iTime ito itime iSupreme iCourt ihas igiven idirections

ito ithe iCentral iGovernment, iState iGovernment iand iUnion iTerritory iAdministrators, iadequate

isteps ishould ibe itaken ito irescue ithe iprostitutes, ichild iprostitutes, iand ithe ineglected ijuveniles. i

They ishould itake imeasures ito iprovide ithem iadequate isafety, iprotection iand irehabilitation iin
ithe ijuvenile ihomes imanned iby iqualified itrained isocial iworkers ior ihomes irun iby iNGOs iwith

ithe iaid iand ifinancial iassistance igiven iby ithe iGovernment iof iIndia ior iState iGovernment

iconcerned.
The iProhibition iof iChild iMarriage iAct, i2006
Having irealized ithe iineffectiveness iof ithe iChild iMarriage iRestraint iAct, i1929, ithe iIndian
iLegislature ienacted ithe iProhibition iof iChild iMarriage iAct, i2006 i(Act i6 iof i2007). iThis iAct

iprovides ifor istringent ipenal iaction iagainst ithose iwho iindulge iin isolemnization iof ichild

imarriage. iThe ititle iof ithis inew iAct iuses ithe iword i“prohibition” iwhereas ithe iAct iof i1929 ihad

iused ithe iword i“restraint”. iNow isolemnization iof ichild imarriage iis ipunishable iwith irigorous

iimprisonment iof iup ito itwo iyears iand ifine iwhich imay iextend ito ione ilakh irupees. iOffences

iunder ithis iAct iare icognizable iand inon-bailable, inotwithstanding ianything icontained iin ithe

iCode iofCriminal iProcedure, i1973.

This iAct iprovides ifor ithe iprohibition iof isolemnization iof ichild imarriages iand imakes ichild
45
imarriages ito ibe ivoidable iat ithe ioption iof icontracting iparty.

The iCommission ifor iProtection iof iChild iRights iAct, i2005

This iis ian iAct ito iprovide ifor ithe iconstitution iof ia iNational iCommission iandState
iCommissions ifor iProtection iof iChild iRights iand iChildren’s iCourts ifor iprovidingspeedy itrial

iof ioffences iagainst ichildren ior iof iviolation iof ichild irights iand ifor imattersconnected ithere

iwith ior iincidental ithereto.

India iparticipated iin ithe iUnited iNations i(UN) iGeneral iAssembly iSummit iin1990, iwhich
iadopted ia iDeclaration ion iSurvival, iProtection iand iDevelopment iofChildren iand iIndia ihas

ialso iacceded ito ithe iConvention ion ithe iRights iof ithe iChild(CRC)’on i11th iDecember, i1992.

iConvention ion ithe iRights iof ithe iChild iis ianinternational itreaty ithat imakes iit iincumbent iupon

ithe isignatory iStates ito itake iallnecessary isteps ito iprotect ichildren’s irights ienumerated iin ithe

iConvention. iThe iUNGeneral iAssembly iSpecial iSession ion iChildren iheld iin iMay, i2002

iadopted ian

45
iSection i3 iof ithe iProhibition iof iChild iMarriage iAct, i2006
outcome iDocument ititled i“A iWorld iFit ifor iChildren” icontaining ithe igoals,

iobjectives,strategies iand iactivities ito ibe iundertaken iby ithe imember icountries ifor ithe

icurrentdecade. iGovernment ienacted ia ilaw irelating ito ichildren ito igive ieffect ito ithe

ipoliciesadopted iby ithe iGovernment iin ithis iregard, istandards iprescribed iin ithe iCRC, iand

iallother irelevant iinternational iinstruments. iIn iorder ito iensure iprotection ito iright iofchildren

ione iof ithe irecent iinitiatives ithat ithe iGovernment ihas itaken ifor iChildren iis itheadoption iof

iNational iCharter ifor iChildren, i2003.

RIGHTS iAND iSTATUS iOF iVICTIMS iOF iCRIME iWITH iSPECIAL iFOCUS iON iWOMEN
iAND iCHILDREN

Victims ishould ibe itreated iwith icompassion iand irespect ifor itheir idignity. iThey iare ientitled ito
iaccess ito ithe imechanisms iof ijustice iand ito iprompt iredress, ias iprovided ifor iby inational

ilegislation, ifor ithe iharm ithey ihave isuffered." iStrange iand iironical ias iit imay isound, ithe

iadministration iof icriminal ijustice iis inot imuch iconcerned iwith ithe ivictims iof icrime iexcept

ithat iin ia ifew icases isome imarginal iaction iis ipossible ito irender ilimited ior itoken ihelp ito ithe

ivictims.

iThe ientire ifocus iof ithe icriminal ijustice isystem iis ion ithe ioffender; ito ipunish ihim ior ito iseek

ihis ireformation iand irehabilitation iwith iall ithe iresources iand igoodwill iavailable ithrough ithe

icourts iand iother igovernmental iand inon-governmental iagencies. iEfforts iare imade ito

iunderstand ihis ipersonality iand ithe iindividual iand isocial ifactors iwhich imight ihave icontributed

ito ihis icriminal ibehaviour. iThe ivictims iof ithe icrimes iare, ion ithe iother ihand, i‘the iforgotten

ipeople iin ithe isystem’.

Rights iof iVictims iof iCrime iin iCriminal iJustice iSystem

The istudy iof iexisting ilegal iframework iin irelation ito irights iof ivictims iof icrime ireveals ithat
iexcept iin ithe iarea iof iproviding icompensation, ivery ilittle ihas ibeen idone ieither istatutorily ior

ithrough ischemes ito iaddress ithe ientire irange iof iproblems ifaced iby ivictims iof icrime. i

No idoubt iin ian iadversial isystem, ieach iattempt iis imade ito ideliver ijustice ifrom ithe ipoint iof
iview iof ian iaccused. iAdversial isystem ifollows ithe isimple irule iof icriminal ijurisprudence ithat

i10 iculprits iare ijustified ito ibe iacquitted ithan ithe ihanging ior iprosecution iof ian iinnocent ione.

iIndian isystem iof icriminal ijustice iis iaccused ioriented. iThe irights iof ivictims iof icrime iare

ioften ioverlooked. iUnlike ithe iaccused, ivictims ihave ivirtually ino irights iin icriminal

iproceedings iand iproceedings iare isupposedly iconducted ion itheir ibehalf iby iState iagencies.

iRight ifrom ithe ibeginning iof ia itrial itill ithe ifinal iconclusion, iattempts iare imade ito ibenefit ithe

iaccused, isometimes ieven iat ithe icost iof ivictim’s isentiments. iCriminal ijustice isystem ithough

ipro-accused, igives icertain irights ito ithe ivictims iof icrime ialso. iBut ithese irights iare iscattered iin

ivarious ienactments isuch ias iIndian iPenal iCode, iIndian iEvidence iAct iand ithe iCriminal

iProcedure iCode. iBecause iof iless iawareness, imost iof ithese irights iremain iunexercised.

The iCriminal iProcedure iCode, i1973

iBefore ithe iCode iof iCriminal iProcedure i(Amendment) iAct, i2008, ithe iword i‘victim’ iis inot

idefined, ionly ithe ilegal iterm i‘the icomplainant’ iis iused iin ithe iCriminal iProcedure iCode. iBy

46
ithis iamendment isection i2(wa) ihas ibeen iinserted iin ithe iCode iof iCriminal iProcedure iwhich

idefine ithe iterm i“victim”. iAccording ito ithis iprovision i“victim’ imeans ia iperson iwho ihas

isuffered iany iloss ior iinjury icaused iby ireason iof ithe iact ior iomission ifor iwhich ithe iaccused

iperson ihas ibeen icharged iand ithe iexpression i“victim” iincludes ihis ior iher iguardian ior ilegal

iheir.

46
iCome iinto iforce ion i31 ist iDecember, i2009
The ivictim/complainant icould iset ithe icriminal ijustice imechanism iin imotion iby igiving
47
iinformation ito ithe ipolice iwhich iis iexpected ito ireduce iit iinto iwriting. iThe ivictim ias ian

iinformant iis ientitled ito ia icopy iof ithe iFirst iInformation iReport i(FIR) i“forthwith, ifree iof

48
icost”.

Where ithe iofficer-in-charge iof ia ipolice istation irefuses ito iact iupon isuch iinformation, ithe
ivictim ican iwrite ito ithe iSuperintendent iof iPolice iwho iis ithen iexpected ito idirect iinvestigation

iinto ithe icomplaint. iIf ithe ipolice ido inot iregister ithe ireport ithen ivictim ican igive ia icomplaint

ito ia iMagistrate, iwho iwill iin iturn iexamine ithe icomplainant ion ioath iand ienquire iinto ithe icase

ihimself/herself ior idirect iinvestigation iby ithe ipolice ibefore itaking icognizance. iThe ivictim

ithereafter idoes inot iparticipate iin ithe iinvestigation iexcept iby ibeing icalled ito iconfirm ithe

iidentity iof ithe iaccused ior ithe imaterial iobjects, iif iany, irecovered iduring ithe icourse

iofinvestigation.

A icrime iis ia iwrong inot ionly iagainst ithe iindividual ivictim ibut ialso iagainst ithe iState. iIt iis
ibecause iof ithis iconsideration ithat ithe iState, iparticipates iin ia icriminal itrial ias iparty iagainst ithe

iperson iaccused iof icrime imore iparticularly iif ithe icrime iis ia icognizable ioffence. iThe iPublic

iProsecutor ior iAssistant iPublic iProsecutor iis ithe icounsel ifor ithe iState iin isuch itrials. iThe

iPublic iProsecutor ior iAssistant iPublic iProsecutor imay iappear iin iany icourt, iwithout iany

iwritten ipermission ifrom iany iauthority.

iA iprivate icounsel ican ibe iengaged iby ithe ivictim iwho ishall iassist ithe iPublic iProsecutor iand

ican isubmit iwritten iargument iafter ithe ievidence iis iclosed. iThe iMagistrate ihimself, iinquiring

iinto ior itrying iany icase, ican ipermit ithe iprosecution ito ibe iconducted iby iany iperson iother ithan

ipolice iofficer ibelow ithe irank iof iInspector ibut ino ipolice iofficer ishall ibe ipermitted ito iconduct

ithe iprosecution, iwho ihas itaken ipart iin ithe iinvestigation iof ian ioffence.

iCourt imay ipermit ithe ivictim ito iengage ian iadvocate iof ihis ichoice ito iassist ithe iSpecial iPublic

iProsecutor. iProviso ito isection i24(8) ihas ibeen iintroduced iin iorder ito ihelp ithe ivictims ito igive

ia imore iactive irole iin ithe idispensation iof icriminal ijustice. iIn iother iwords, ithe ipurpose iof ithe

47
iSection i154(1) iof ithe iCode iof iCriminal iProcedure, i1973.This iis iregistered ias ithe ifirst iinformation ireport
i(FIR)
48
Section i154(2) iofthe iCode iof iCriminal iProcedure, i1973 i
iproviso iis ito ihave iactive iparticipation iofthe ivictims iin ithe ijustice idelivery isystem. iAfter iall iit

iis ithe ivictim iwho isets ithe icriminal ilaw iinto imotion iand iit iis ihe iwho iis ithe iaffected iparty. iA

ireading iof ithe isaid iproviso iunder isection i24(8) iofthe iCode iof iCriminal iProcedure iwould

iclearly ishow ithat ithe iCourt iconcerned ican ipermit ithe ivictims ito iengage ian iadvocate iof ihis

ichoice ito iassist ithe iprosecution.

Proviso iof iSection i24(8) iCr. iP.C. ispeaks iabout ithe iassistance ito iprosecution. iTherefore iit
iimplies ithat ithe irole iofthe iProsecutor iis ialso ito ibe ishared iby ithe ivictim’s icounsel iby iway iof

iassisting ithe iprosecution ieven iif iit iis ito ia ilimited iextent. iProviso ito iSection i24(8) iof

iCriminal iProcedure iCode iis iin iother iwords ian iexpansion iof iSection i301 iof ithe iCriminal

iProcedure iCode.

iBoth iproviso iunder iSection i24(8) iand iSection i301 iCriminal iProcedure iCode iwill ihave ito

iread itogether. iEngaging iof ian iadvocate ishould ionly imean ito ihave ian ieffective iassistance.

iThat iis ia ireason iwhy ithe iword i‘advocate’ ihas ibeen iincorporated iunder isection i24. iThe

idefinition iof ia i‘pleader’ iis iwider iwhich ihas ito ibe iread iin ithe icontext iof isection i301 iCriminal

iProcedure iCode iand ithe idefinition iof iword i‘advocate’ iwould imean ian iactive iparticipation iin

ithe iprosecution ithrough ia icounsel. iTherefore iin iorder ito iappreciate ithe isame ithis iCourt iwill

ihave ito ilook iinto ithe iobject iand ireasons ias iwell ias ia isimple iinterpretation iofthe iprovisions.

iThe ilegislature ihas itaken iinto iconsideration iof isection i301 iCriminal iProcedure iCode iwhile

49
iintroducing ithe iproviso ito isection i24(8).

Hence ion ia ireading iof iSection i301 itogether iwith iproviso iunder iSection i24(8) iCriminal
iProcedure iCode, ithis iCourt iis iof ithe iopinion ithat ithey ionly icomplimentary iwith ieach iother

iby iproviding imore iaccess ito ian iaggrieved iparty ito iassist ithe iprosecution. iSection i301 iof

iCriminal iProcedure iCode ispeaks iabout ithe ipower iof ithe iPublic iProsecutor ito iconduct ithe

iprosecution.

iA iconjoint ireading iof iSection i301 iand i24(8) iwould imake iit iclear ithat iit iis ithe iPublic

iProsecutor iwho iconducts ithe icase ibut iit idoes inot imean ithat ia ilawyer iengaged iby ia ivictim

ishall inot ibe iallowed ito isupplement ithe iconducting iof ithe icase iby ithe iProsecutor. iA ilawyer

49
iMadras iHigh iCourt idiscussed iin idetail ithe iSection i301 iand iProviso ito isection i24(8) iin
iSathyaraniPonraniv.Samuel iRaj idated i07/07/ i2010
ihas ito irender ihis iassistance iin ithree idifferent iways. iHe ihas ito irender iassistance ito ithe

ivictims, ito ithe iprosecution iand ian iofficer iof ithe iCourt. i

Therefore ithis iCourt iis iof ithe iopinion ithat ia icombined ireading iof isection i301 iand iproviso
iunder isection i24(8) iwould imake iit iclear ithat ia ilawyer ican ibe iengaged ito iargue iand iin ian

iappropriate icase iwith ithe ipermission iof ithe iCourt ito iexamine ithe iwitnesses.

Further ia ireading iofthe iabove isaid iprovision iwould ishow ithat iSection i301 iSpeaks iabout ithe
iinstructing ia ipleader iwhereas iSection i24(8) iproviso ispeak iabout iengaging ia ilawyer.

iTherefore iunder iSection i301 ia iparty ican iengage ia ilawyer iand iconduct ithe icase ialong iwith

50
ithe iPublic iProsecutor.

Hon’ble iSupreme iCourt iin iZahira iHabibulla iH. iSheikh iv. iState iof iGujarat51 inoted ithat ia
iPublic iProsecutor iis ian iofficer iof iCourt ibut ithere iare iinstances iin iwhich iPublic iProsecutor iis

ieither inot icompetent ior iacts ionly ion ithe iinstruction igiven iby ithe iState iand ia iPublic

iProsecutor imay inot ibe iaware iof ithe ifacts iwhich ithe ivictim iis iin ipossession iof. iA iPublic

iProsecutor iis iinstructed iby ipolice iand inot iby ivictim. iIn ias imuch ias ithe ivictim iseeks ito iassist

iprosecution ithere icannot ibe iany iprejudice isince iwhat iis isought ito ibe imade iis ionly ito iassist

ithe iprosecution inot ito ireplace ithe iprosecution. iA iPublic iProsecutor iconducts ithe icase iwith ia

isense iof idetachment iwhereas ithe ivictim iis iattached ito ithe icase. i

A idecision imade iin ia icase idoes inot iimpact ia iPublic iProsecutor iwhich iis inot ithe icase iwith ithe
ivictim iwho iis ithe iaffected iparty. iThus ithe iintroduction iof iproviso ito isubsection i24(8) iis ito

iprovide ian iadequate iopportunity ito ithe ivictim ito itake ipart iin ithe icriminal iproceeding.

Recording iof iStatement iof iRape iVictim iat iher iPlace

To isave ifrom ithe iembarrassment iof ibeing isummoned ito ithe ipolice istation, ito istop ithe ifurther
ihumiliation iof ithe ivictim iof irape iby ithe ipolice iofficers iin ithe ipolice istation iand iavoid ito igive

istatements iin ifront iof istrangers iregarding ithe icommission iof ioffence iof irape, ithe istatement iof

irape ivictim ishall ibe irecorded iat iher iresidence ior iat ia iplace iof iher ichoice iand ias ifar ias

50
ibid
51
i(2004)4 iSCC158
ipracticable iby ia iwoman ipolice iofficer iin ithe ipresence iof iher iparents ior iguardian ior inear

52
irelatives ior isocial iworker iof ithe ilocality. iFurther ian iinvestigating ipolice iofficer ican iby

iwritten iorder irequire ithe iattendance ibefore ihimself iof iany iperson iwho iis iacquainted iwith ithe

53
ifacts ior icircumstances iof ithe icase, i01 iand iperson iis iwithin ithe ilimits iof ithe ipolice istation.

However ia iperson ibelow ififteen iyears iof iage, ior ia iwoman ishall inot ibe irequired ito iattend iany
iplace iother ithan ithe iplace iin iwhich isuch iperson ior iwoman iresides. iThis iprovision iis iintended

ito igive ispecial iprotection ito ichildren iand iwomen iagainst ithe iprobable iindignities iand

iinconveniences ithat imight ibe icaused ito ithem iby ithe iabuse iof ipolice ipowers iunder isection

i160(l).There iis ia ipublic ipolicy ibehind ithis ilegislative iprescription iwhich ikeep ijuveniles iand

ifemales iaway ifrom ipolice icompany iexcept iat itheir iresidence.

These iprovisions iwill ispare ithe ivictims iof ithe iagony iof ivisiting ipolice istations iand ianswering
iinconvenient i- iobscene iin imany icases i- iquestions iin ithe ipresence iof iunknown ipersons. iWhile

igoing ito iattend iCourt, icomplainant ior iwitnesses ishall inot ibe irequired ito iaccompany ia ipolice

iofficer ior ishall inot ibe isubjected ito iunnecessary irestraint, iinconvenience iand ithey iare inot

irequired ito igive iany itype iof isecurity iexcept itheir iown ibond. iThis iprovision isafeguards iand

iprotects ithe ipersonal iliberty iof icomplainant ior iwitnesses ias ienshrined iin iArticle i21 iof ithe

iConstitution.

Medical iExamination iof ithe iVictim iof iRape

The icrime iof irape iis ia imajor iproblem iin iIndia ias iis ievident ifrom ithe ireports iin ithe ipress ias
iwell ias iofficial istatistics. iMost iofthe itime iaccused ipersons ihave igone ifree ibecause iof ipoor

ievidence igathering iand ias iwell ias iother ilacunae iin ithe ilaw. iIn irape icases, ithe iprosecution ican

isecure ia iconviction ibased isolely ion ithe itestimony iof ithe irape ivictim, iprovided ithe itestimony

52
iProviso ito iSection i157(1) iof ithe iCode iof iCriminal iProcedure, i1973 iinserted iby ithe iCode iof iCriminal
iProcedure i(Amendment) iAct, i2008
53
iSection i160 i(1), iofthe iCode iof iCriminal iProcedure, i1973
iis icogent, iconsistent iand iinspiring iconfidence. iBut iin ipractice ijudges iand ithe ipolice igive

isignificant iweight ito ithe imedical iexamination. iThus imedical iexamination iofthe iaccused ias

iwell ias iofthe ivictim iofrape iplays ia icrucial irole iin iconviction iofthe iaccused. iMedical

iexamination iofthe iaccused iperson iat ithe irequest iof ipolice iofficer iand iperson iaccused iof irape

54
iis iconducted iby iregistered imedical ipractitioner iand ithe imedical iexamination iof ifemale imust

ibe imade iby ifemale imedical iofficer iwith istrict iregard ito idecency.

iSpecial iprovision iis iinserted iin ithe iCriminal iProcedure iCode iso ithat icourts iget ithe iaccurate

iand iprompt ireport iof ithe imedical iexamination iof ithe ivictim iof irape. iAccording ito ithis

iprovision, iduring iinvestigation iof ithe ioffence iof icommission iof irape ior iattempt ito icommit

irape, ithe ivictim iof ia irape iis iproposed ito iexamine iher iperson iby ia iregistered imedical

ipractitioner iemployed iin ia ihospital irun iby ithe iGovernment ior ia ilocal iauthority iand iin ithe

iabsence iofsuch ia ipractitioner iby iany iregistered imedical ipractitioner. i

Woman ishall ibe isent ito iregistered imedical ipractitioner iwith iher iconsent ior iwith ithe iconsent
iof ia iperson iwho iis icompetent ito igive iconsent ion iher ibehalf. iSuch iwoman ishall ibe isent ito

55
iregistered imedical ipractitioner iwithin i24 ihours iof ithe icommission iof ithe ioffence iof irape.

Such iregistered imedical ipractitioner ishall iwithout idelay iexamine ithe iperson iof ithe ivictim iof
irape iand iprepare ia ireport iof ihis iexamination iin idetail iincluding iname iaddress, iage, igeneral

imental icondition iand iinjuries ion ithe iperson iof ithe iwoman, ireasons ifor ithe iconclusion iarrived,

ispecifically irecord ithe iconsent iof ithe iwoman ior iany iperson icompetent ito igive iconsent ion iher

ibehalf ifor imedical iexamination, iexact itime iof icommencement iand icompletion iof ithe

iexamination. iAnd iregistered imedical ipractitioner ishall iwithout idelay iforward ithis ireport ito

ithe iinvestigating iofficer iwho ishall iforward ithe ireport ito ithe iMagistrate. iIt iis ibinding ito iattach

54
iSections i53, i53A iand i54 iofthe iCode iof iCriminal iProcedure, i1973.
55
iSection i164A iof ithe iCode iof iCriminal iProcedure, i1973 iinserted iby iCriminal iProcedure iCode i(Amendment)
iAct, i2005.
ireport iof imedical iexamination iof ithe ivictim iof irape imust ibe iattached iwith ithe iinvestigation

56
ireport isent iby ipolice ito ithe iMagistrate.

Investigation ito ibe iCompleted iwithin i3 iMonths iin iCase iof iChild iVictim

Children iare ithe imost ivulnerable isection iof ithe isociety idue ito itheir iimmature iunderstanding
iand iweak iphysical istrength. iLaw ihas imade ispecial iprovisions ifor itheir iprotection iand ioverall

idevelopment iof itheir ipersonality. iWhen ian ioffence iis icommitted iagainst ithe ichild, iit iwill

iadversely iaffect ithe imental iand iphysical ihealth iof ithe ichild. iIn imost iofthe icases ipolice iare

iunable ito iinvestigate ithe icase iwithin ia iperiod iof ishort ispan, ithis iinefficiency ion ithe ipart iof

ipolice ifurther iaggravate ithe imiseries iof ithe ichild ivictims ispecially ithe ivictims iof irape. i

To iprevent ithis ifurther ivictimization, ilegislature ihas imade ithe iinvestigation iprocedure itime
ibound iby iproviding ithat ithe iinvestigation iin irelation ito irape iof ia ichild imay ibe icompleted

iwithin ithree imonths ifrom ithe idate ion iwhich ithe iinformation iwas irecorded iby ithe iofficer-in-

charge iof ithe ipolice istation.57

Mandatory iJudicial iInquiry iin iCase iof ian iAlleged iRape ion ia iWoman

Section i176 iof ithe iCode iof iCriminal iProcedure ihas ibeen iamended ito iprovide imandatory
58
ijudicial iinquiry iin icase iof icustodial irape iof ia iwoman. iWhen irape iis ialleged ito ihave ibeen

icommitted ion iany iwoman iwhile isuch iwoman iis iin ithe ipolice icustody ior iin iany iother icustody

iauthorized iby ithe iMagistrate ior ithe iCourt, iin iaddition ito ithe iinquiry ior iinvestigation iheld iby

ithe ipolice, ian iinquiry ishall ibe iheld iby ithe iJudicial iMagistrate, ior ithe iMetropolitan iMagistrate

59
ias ithe icase imay ibe, iwithin iwhose ilocal ijurisdiction ithe ioffence ihas ibeen icommitted.

56
iSection i173(2) i(h) iofthe iCode iof iCriminal iProcedure, i1973.
57
Section i173 iamended iby ithe iCode iof iCriminal iProcedure i(Amendment) iAct, i2005
58
iSection i173 iamended iby ithe iCode iof iCriminal iProcedure i(Amendment) iAct, i2005
59
iSection i173 i(1 iA)(b) iofthe iCode iof iCriminal iProcedure, i1973
Inquiry ior iTrial ishall ibe iCompleted iwithin ia iPeriod iof iTwo iMonths iin iCase iof iRape

Supreme iCourt ihas iconsistently imaintained ithat ithe iright ito ispeedy itrial iis ipart iof iguarantee
iof ithe ifundamental iright ito ilife iand ipersonal iliberty. iThe iLaw iCommission iof iIndia iin iits

i‘Report ion iDelays iand iArrears iin iTrial iCourts irecommended ithat ia icriminal icase ishould ibe

60
idisposed ioff iwith iin isix imonths, Right ito ispeedy itrial iis ia ifundamental iright iIn ievery

iinquiry ior itrial, ithe iproceedings ishall ibe iheld ias iexpeditiously ias ipossible. iKeeping iin iview

ithe iSupreme iCourt ijudgments iand iLaw iCommission ireport, ilegislature ihas iamended ithe

iCriminal iProcedure iCode iand imade ia iprovision ithat iwhen ithe iinquiry ior itrial irelates ito ian

ioffence iof irape, ithe iinquiry ior itrial ishall ibe icompleted iwithin ia iperiod iof itwo imonths ifrom

61
ithe idate iof icommencement iofthe iexamination iof iwitnesses.

No iUnnecessary iQuestioning iRegarding iPast iCharacter iof iVictim

62
iIn iDelhi iDomestic iWorking iWomen’s iForum iv. iUnion iof iIndia , ithe iSupreme iCourt
iobserved ithat ithe ivictims iinvariably ifind ithe itrial iof ian ioffence iof irape ia itraumatic

iexperience. iThe iexperience iof igiving ievidence iin icourt ihas ibeen inegative iand idestructive iand

ithe ivictims ioften iexpressed ithat ithey iconsidered ithe iordeal iof ifacing icross-examination iin ithe

icriminal itrial ito ibe ieven iworse ithan ithe irape iitself. iKeeping iin iview ithe iobservation iof ithe

iapex icourt, ilegislature ihas iamended ithe iEvidence iAct, ithereby igiving iprotection ito ia ivictim

iof irape ifrom iunnecessary i iquestioning iabout iher ipast icharacter.

The iIndian iPenal iCode, i1860

iSome isections iof ithe isociety iare ivulnerable idue ito itheir iage, imental icondition ior iphysical

istrength. iIt iis ithe iduty iof ia iwelfare istate ito iprotect ithese isections iof ithe isociety. iArticle i15(3)

60
Tiwana, iMandeep iArticle ion i‘Criminal iJustice iReforms’ ipublished iin iThe iTribune i8 iJuly, i2006
61
iProviso ito iSection i309(1) iof ithe iCode iof iCriminal iProcedure, i1973 iinserted iby ithe iCode iof iCriminal
iProcedure i(Amendment) iAct, i2008
62
i1995(1)SCC i14
iof ithe iConstitution iprovides ithat i‘Nothing iin ithis iarticle ishall iprevent ithe istate ifrom imaking

iany iprovision ifor iwomen iand ichildren’. iFurther iarticle i39(e) iprovides ithat ithe itender iage iof

ichildren iis inot iabused. iClause i(f) iof iarticle i39 istipulates ithat ichildren iare ito ibe igiven

iopportunities iand ifacilities ito idevelop iin ia ihealthy imanner iand iin iconditions iof ifreedom iand

idignity iand ithat iyouth ishould ibe iprotected iagainst iexploitation iand iagainst imoral iand

imaterial iabandonment. iFollowing iprovisions iof ithe iIndian iPenal iCode igives iprotection

iespecially ito iwomen iand ichildren.

Bar ito iDisclose ithe iIdentity iof ithe iVictim iof iCertain iOffences

Section i228-A ihas ibeen iinserted iby ithe iCriminal iLaw i(Amendment) iAct, i1983, iwith ia iview
ito iprotect iidentity iofrape ivictims ifrom ipublic iglare. iIn iour icountry, ithe istigma iattached ito ia

irape ivictim iis imuch imore ithan ithe istigma iattached ito ia iperson iaccused iof irape. iThere ihave

ibeen iinstances, iwhere isensitive icases ihave ibeen isensationalized ito ithe idetriment iof ithe irape

ivictims. i

In iorder ito iprotect itheir iinterest, ithis isection ihas ibeen ienacted iwhich imakes ithe ipublishing ior
irevealing ithe iidentity iof iany irape ivictim ian ioffence. iHowever, iproceedings iof ipolice iofficials

iin icharge iof iinvestigation iand ia ipublishing ior iprinting iof ijudgments iof iHigh iCourts ior ithe

iSupreme iCourt iis iexcluded ifrom ithe iprovisions iof ithis isection. i

The isection ialso iprotects ipublication imade iwith ithe iconsent iofthe ivictim iin iwriting ior ithe
iguardian iof ithe ivictim, iwhere ithe ivictim iis ia iminor ior ia iperson iof iunsound imind. iBut, ieven

isuch iauthorization ishall ibe igiven ionly ito ia irecognized isocial iwelfare iinstitution. i

Abetment iof iSuicide iof iChild

If iany iperson iunder i18 iyears iof iage icommits isuicide iwhoever iabets ithe icommission iof isuch
isuicide ishall ibe ipunished iwith ideath ior iimprisonment ifor ilife ior iimprisonment ifor ia iterm inot

63
iexceeding i10 iyears iand ishall ialso ibe iliable ito ifine.

63
iSection i305 iofthe iIndian iPenal iCode. i1860
Protection ito ithe iUnborn, iNewborn ior iOther iChildren ifrom ibeing iKilled ior iAbandoned

The ioffences irelating ito ichildren iinclude icausing iof imiscarriage, iinjuries ito iunborn ichildren,
iabandonment iand iexposure iof iinfants iand iconcealment iof ibirths iand idisposal iof idead ibodies

64
iof ichildren.These iprovisions iare ifor ithe iprotection iof ichildren.

In iour icountry iwhere ibirth iof ia igirl ichild iis istill iconsidered ia icurse iand ia iburden, ifemale
65
ifoeticide iand ifemale iinfanticide iis ivery ihigh, isuch itypes iof iprovisions iin iform iof iprotection

iare idesirable.

The iJuvenile iJustice i(Care iand iProtection iof iChildren) iAct, i2000

The iConstitution ihas iin iseveral iprovisions iincluding iArticle i15(3), iArticle i24, iArticle i41(e)
iand i(f), i45, i47 iimpose ion ithe iState ia iprimary iresponsibility iof iensuring ithat iall ithe ineeds iof

ichildren iare imet iand ithat itheir ibasic ihuman irights iare ifully iprotected. iBesides iprovisions ifor

ithe iprotection iof irights iof ithe ichild iin ithe iConstitution, ion iInternational ilevel ialso ithe

iGeneral iAssembly iof ithe iUnited iNations ihas iadopted ithe iConvention ion ithe iRights iof ithe

iChild ion ithe i20 iNovember, i1989 iand ithis iConvention ihas iprescribed ia iset iof istandards ito ibe

iadhered ito iby iall istate iparties iin isecuring ithe ibest iinterests iof ithe ichild. i

Further ithe iConvention ion ithe iRights iof ithe iChild iemphasis’s isocial ireintegration iof ichild
ivictims, ito ithe iextent ipossible, iwithout iresorting ito ijudicial iproceedings. iAnd ithe iGovernment

iof iIndia ihas iratified ithe iConvention ion ithe i11th iDecember, i1992, iso iit iis iexpedient ito ire-

enact ithe iexisting ilaw irelating ito ijuveniles ibearing iin imind ithe istandards iprescribed iin ithe

64
iSections i312-318 iofthe iIndian iPenal iCode, i1860
65
ithe iParliament iin i1994 ienacted ithe iPre-natal iDiagnostic iTechniques i(Regulation iand iPrevention iof iMisuse)
iAct, i1994.
iConvention ion ithe iRights iof ithe iChild, ithe iUnited iNations iStandard iMinimum iRules ifor ithe

iAdministration iof iJuvenile iJustice, i1985 i(the iBeijing irules), ithe iUnited iNations iRules ifor ithe

iProtection iof iJuveniles iDeprived iof itheir iLiberty i(1990) iand iall iother irelevant iinternational

iinstruments.

Observation iHomes

The iState iGovernment imay iestablish iand imaintain ieither iby iitself ior iunder ian iagreement iwith
ivoluntary iorganizations, iobservation ihomes iin ievery idistrict ior ia igroup iof idistricts, ifor ithe

itemporary ireception iof iany ijuvenile iin iconflict iwith ilaw iduring ithe ipendency iof iany iinquiry.

iIf ithe iState iGovernment iis iof iopinion ithat iany iinstitution iother ithan ia ihome iestablished ior

imaintained iunder ithe iAct, iis ifit ifor ithe itemporary ireception iof ijuvenile iin iconflict iwith ilaw

iduring ithe ipendency iof iany iinquiry, iit imay icertify isuch isubstitution ias ian iobservation ihome.

iThe iState iGovernment imay, iframe irules ifor ithe imanagement iof iobservation ihomes, iand ithe

imanner iin iwhich, ithe icertificate iof ian iobservation ihome imay ibe igranted ior iwithdrawn. iEvery

ijuvenile iwho iis inot iplaced iunder ithe icharge iof iparent ior iguardian iand iis isent ito ian

iobservation ihome ishall ibe iinitially ikept iin ia ireception iunit iof ithe iobservation ihome ifor

ipreliminary iinquiries, icare iand iclassification ifor ijuveniles iaccording ito ihis iage igroup, igiving

66
idue iconsiderations ito iphysical iand imental istatus iand idegree iof ithe ioffence icommitted.

Special iHomes
The iState iGovernment imay iestablish iand imaintain ieither iby iitself ior iunder ian iagreement iwith
ivoluntary iorganizations, ispecial ihomes iin ievery idistrict ior ia igroup iof idistricts, ifor ireception

iand irehabilitation iof ijuvenile iin iconflict iwith ilaw. iIf ithe iState iGovernment ithinks ithat iany

iinstitution iother ithan ia ihome iestablished ior imaintained iunder ithe iAct iis ifit ifor ithe ireception

iof ijuvenile iin iconflict iwith ilaw ito ibe isent ithere, iit imay icertify isuch iinstitution ias ia ispecial

ihome. iThe iState iGovernment imay iframe irules ifor ithe imanagement iof ispecial ihomes,

iincluding ithe istandards iand ivarious itypes iof iservices ito ibe iprovided iby ithem iwhich iare

66
iSection i8 iofthe iJuvenile iJustice i(Care iand iProtection iof iChildren) iAct, i2000
inecessary ifor ire-socialisation iof ia ijuvenile, iand ithe icircumstances iunder iwhich iand ithe

imanner iin iwhich, ithe icertification iof ia ispecial ihome imay ibe igranted ior iwithdrawn. iSuch

irules imay ialso iprovide ifor iclassification iand iseparation iof ijuvenile iin iconflict iwith ilaw ion

ithe ibasis iof iage iand ithe inature iof ioffences icommitted iby ithem iand ihis imental iand iphysical

67
istatus.

Duty iof ithe iJuvenile iJustice iBoard

Where ia iBoard iis isatisfied ion iinquiry ithat ia ijuvenile ihas icommitted ian ioffence, ithen ithe
iBoard imay, iifit ithinks iso ifit,- i

(a) allow ithe ijuvenile ito igo ihome iafter iadvice ior iadmonition ifollowing iappropriate
iinquiry iagainst iand icounselling ito ithe iparent ior ithe iguardian iand ithe ijuvenile;

(b) idirect ithe ijuvenile ito iparticipate iin igroup icounselling iand isimilar iactivities; i
(c) iorder ithe ijuvenile ito iperform icommunity iservice; i
(d) iorder ithe iparent iof ithe ijuvenile ior ithe ijuvenile ihimself ito ipay ia ifine, iif ihe iis iover
ifourteen iyears iof iage iand iearns imoney;

(e) idirect ithe ijuvenile ito ibe ireleased ion iprobation iof igood iconduct iand iplaced iunder ithe
icare iof iany iparent, iguardian ior iother ifit iperson, ion isuch iparent, iguardian ior iother ifit

iperson iexecuting ia ibond, iwith ior iwithout isurety, ias ithe iBoard imay irequire ifor ithe

igood ibehaviour iand iwell-being iof ithe ijuvenile ifor iany iperiod inot iexceeding ithree

iyears; i

(f) idirect ithe ijuvenile ito ibe ireleased ion iprobation iof igood iconduct iand iplaced iunder
ithe icare iof iany ifit iinstitution ifor ithe igood ibehaviour iand iwell-being iof ithe ijuvenile

ifor iany iperiod inot iexceeding ithree iyears;

i(g) imake ian iorder idirecting ithe ijuvenile ito ibe isent ito ia ispecial ihome ifor ia iperiod

iofthree iyears. i

The iBoard imay, iifit iis isatisfied ithat ihaving iregard ito ithe inature iof ithe ioffence iand ithe
icircumstances iof ithe icase iit iis iexpedient iso ito ido, ifor ireasons ito ibe irecorded ireduce

67
Section i9ofthe iJuvenile iJustice i(Care iand iProtection iof iChildren) iAct, i2000
 ithe iperiod iof istay ito isuch iperiod ias iit ithinks ifit. iThe iBoard ibefore ipassing ian iorder

ishall itake iinto iconsideration ithe ifindings iof ithe isocial iinvestigation ireport ion ijuvenile

isubmitted iby ia iprobation iofficer ior ia irecognized ivoluntary iorganization. iWhere ian

iorder iunder iclause i(d), iclause i(e) ior iclause i(f) iabove iis imade, ithe iBoard imay iin ithe

iinterest iof ithe ijuvenile iand iof ithe ipublic, imake ian iorder ithat ithe ijuvenile iin iconflict

iwith ilaw ishall iremain iunder ithe isupervision iof ia iprobation iofficer inamed iin ithe iorder

iduring isuch iperiod, inot iexceeding ithree iyears ias imay ibe ispecified itherein.

iBut iif iat iany itime iafterwards, iit iappears ito ithe iBoard ion ireceiving ia ireport ifrom ithe

iprobation iofficer ior iotherwise, ithat ithe ijuvenile iin iconflict iwith ilaw ihas inot ibeen iof

igood ibehaviour iduring ithe iperiod iof isupervision ior ithat ithe ifit iinstitution iunder iwhose

icare ithe ijuvenile iwas iplaced iis ino ilonger iable ior iwilling ito iensure ithe igood ibehaviour

iand iwell-being iof ithe ijuvenile iit imay, iafter imaking isuch iinquiry ias iit ideems ifit, iorder

ithe ijuvenile iin iconflict iwith ilaw ito ibe isent ito ia ispecial ihome.

Restoring iVictims

The iproponents iof irestitution iplace itoo imuch iemphasis ion ifinancial irestitution iand
ireparation iof imaterial idamage. iSuch iemphasis iis idue ito ian iinadequate iunderstanding

iof ithe iway iin iwhich icrime iharms ipeople iand iof iwhat ithe ioffender ican ido ito ihelp ito

irestore ithe ivictim ito ithe imaterial, ipsychological iand irelational istate ithey iwere iin

ibefore ithe icrime iwas icommitted. i

But iaccording ito iproponents iof irestorative ijustice, ithe imain ireason icrime iis iwrong iand
irequires isome iresponse iis inot ibecause iit iis ian ioffence iagainst isociety, ibut ibecause iit

iis i‘a iviolation iof ia iperson iby ianother iperson’. iIt iis inot idenied ithat i‘ ithe ieffects iof

icrime iripple iout itouching imany iothers’ iand ithat isociety ialso ihas ia ilegitimate iinterest

iin ihow ithe icrime iis idealth iwith, ibut iit iis iasserted ithat ithese i‘public idimensions’

ishould inot ibe ithe istarting ipoint ifor iconsideration iof iwhat ito ido iabout ia icrime. iRather

iour istarting ipoint ishould ibe ithe ifact ithat ione iperson ihas ibeen iharmed iby ithe iwrongful

iactions iof ianother.

RESTORATIVE iJUSTICE

Restorative iJustice iprovides ian ientirely idifferent iway iof ithinking iabout icrime iand
ivictimizations. iUnder iprevious icriminal ijustice iparadigms ithe istate iwas iviewed-as ithe

iprimary ivictim iof icriminal iacts, iand ivictims iand ioffenders iplayed ipassive iroles. iRestorative

ijustice irecognizes icrime ias ifirst iand iforemost ibeing idirected iagainst iindividual ipeople. iIt

iassumes ithat ithose imost iaffected iby icrime ishould ihave ithe iopportunity ito ibecome iactively

iinvolved iin iresolving ithe iconflict.

iThe iemphasis iis ion irestoration iof ilosses, iallowing ioffenders ito itake idirect iresponsibility ifor

itheir iactions, iand iassisting ivictims iin imoving ibeyond itheir isense iof ivulnerability iand

iachieving isome iclosure. iThese igoals istand iin isharp icontrast ito ithose iof itraditional iparadigms,

iwhich ifocused ion ipast icriminal ibehaviour ithrough iever-increasing ilevel iof ipunishment.

iRestorative ijustice iattempts ito idraw iupon ithe istrength iof iboth, ioffender iand ivictim, irather

ithan ifocusing iupon itheir ideficits. iWhile idenouncing icriminal ibehaviour, iRestorative iJustice

iemphasizes ithe ineed ito itreat ioffenders iwith irespect iand ito ireintegrate ithem iinto ithe ilarger

icommunity iin iways ithat ican ilead ito ilawful ibehaviour.

It irepresents ia itruly idifferent iparadigm ibased iupon ithe ifollowing ivalues:-

i1. iRestorative ijustice iis ifar imore iconcerned iabout irestoration iof ithe ivictim iand ivictimized

icommunity ithan iwith iever imore icostly ipunishment iofthe ioffender.

i2. iRestorative iJustice ielevates ithe iimportance iofthe ivictim iin ithe icriminal ijustice iprocess,

ithrough iincreased iinvolvement, iinput iand iservices i

3. iRestorative iJustice irequires ithat ioffenders ibe iheld idirectly iaccountable ito ithe iperson iand/or
icommunity ithat ithey ivictimized. i

4. iRestorative iJustice iencourages ithe ientire icommunity ito ibe iinvolved iin iholding ithe ioffender
iaccountable iand ipromoting ia ihealing iresponse ito ithe ineeds iof ivictims iand ioffenders. i

5. iRestorative iJustice iplaces igreater iemphasis ion ithe ioffender iaccepting iresponsibility ifor ihis
ior iher ibehaviour, iand imaking iamends iwhenever ipossible ithan ion ithe iseverity iof ipunishment.

i6. iRestorative iJustice irecognizes ia icommunity iresponsibility ifor isocial iconditions ithat

68
icontribute ito ioffender ibehavior. i

Techniques iof iRestorative iJustice

To ipractice irestorative ijustice icertain iinnovative itechniques iare ineeded. iThe ifollowing iare
itechniques iofrestorative ijustice i

1. iVictim iOffender iMediation i

2. iFamily iGroup iConferencing

i3. iCommunity iParticipation

i4. iCommunity iService iProgrammes

i5. iRestitution iwhich iincludes icompensation, ivictim icompensation iprogrammes, ivictim

iassistance iprogrammes

1. iVictim-Offender iMediation

68
iRestorative iJustice i- iMark iUmbreit iPublished iin iEncyclopedia iof iCrime iand iJustice i2nd iedition i, iVol.3,2002
ip.78
iIn ivictim-offender imediation imeetings iare iorganized ito igive ioffenders ichance ito itake iactive

isteps ito imake ivoluntary ireparation ito itheir ivictims. iSuch ireparation iextends imuch ifurther

ithan ifinancial icompensation. i

It iincludes ian iapology iand ian iexplanation iof ihow ithe icrime ican ibe itherapeutic ifor ivictims
iand iusually ihas ia ivisible iimpact iupon ithe ioffenders, iwho ihave ito iface iup ito ithe ireality iof

iwhat ithey ihave idone. iOffenders ican irestore itheir iown ireputations, ito isome iextent ithrough

ireparation iand ican ibe ibetter iprepared ifor ireintegration iinto imainstream iof isociety iby ihaving

iresolved itheir iguilt iin ithis iway.

2. iFamily iGroup iConferencing

It iis iessentially ian iextension iof ivictim ioffender imediation. iIt iincludes imore iparties—
offender’s ifamily, ivictim’s ifamily ior isupporters iand icommunity icontracts iof ioffender iwho
imay ibe iable ito ioffer isupport ior ihelp i(a iteacher, iemployer, ineighbour, iyouth iworker, ichurch,

icontract ietc.) i

Family igroup iconferencing iallows ioffender’s ifamily ito ishare ithe iblame iand idirectly iwitness
ithe iharm icaused iand imost iimportantly ian iexploration inot ionly iof ihow ithe ioffender ican iatone

ibut ialso ihow ito ikeep iout iof itrouble iin ifuture iand ihence iit iincludes icommunity iparticipation.

3. iCommunity iParticipation

iSupport ifor ivictims imost ioften ioccurs ithrough ithe ivictim’s iown ipersonal iacquaintances ior

irelatives iand ithis iis ithe imost inatural isource iof iassistance iand iusually ithe imost ivalued. iThe
ivoluntary iorganizations ifor ivictim’s isupport itry ito ifill iup ithe igap iby ioffering ipractical ihelp,

isupport iand iconsolation ito ivictim ion ia ilocal ibasis. i

This icommunity iconcern ifor ivictim ihelps ito iovercome ithe isocial idistrust iand isense iof
i

ialienation ithat iafflict imany ivictims iof icrime. iIt ihelps ito irestore ithe ivictim imaterially

ipsychologically iand isocially. iCommunity isupport ialso ihelps ithe ioffenders ito ifind ijob,

icounselling, irestraining idrug ior ialcohol, iliteracy iand ieducation, iaccommodation ifor ihomeless,

isupport ifor iisolated iand ifor ithe iprovision iof iactivities ito irelease ienergies ior iencourage isocial

iintegration. i

This iis ian iexpression iof icommunity’s ifeelings iof iresponsibility ifor ire-incorporating itheir
ideviant imembers iand isupporting ithose ithat ihave ibeen idamaged iby itheir iexperiences. i

4. iRestitution iIncludes

iCompensation iRestitution iin icriminal ivictim irelationship imeans ireparation iof ivictim’s iloss ior

ibetter irestoration iof ihis iposition iand ihis irights ithat iwere idamaged ior idestroyed iby iand iduring

ithe icriminal iattack. iIt ican ibe iunderstood ias:- irestitution. i

It iincludes iboth ivictim iassistance iprogrammes iand ivictim icompensation iprogrammes. iUnder
i

iVictim iAssistance iProgrammes ithe ivictims iare iprovided iwith ia inumber iof iservices ilike

icounseling, ireferral ito ivarious iagencies iand iinformation iintended ito ihelp ivictims iin icoping

69
iwith ithe iemotional, isocial iand ipractical iconsequences iof icrime.

Declaration iof iBasic iPrinciples iof iJustice ifor iVictims iof iCrime iand iAbuse iof iPower

69
iSee ifor ifurther idetail iCompensation ito iVictims iof iCrime iAmerican iJurisprudence i(2d) iVol.21 iA, i1981,The
iLawyers iCo-operative iPub.Rochester,Newyork iCo. i14694 iBancroftWhitneyCo.SanFranscisco, iCalifornia, i94107.
iThe iGeneral iAssembly, iRecalling ithat ithe iSixth iUnited iNations iCongress ion ithe iPrevention

iof iCrime iand ithe iTreatment iof iOffenders irecommended ithat ithe iUnited iNations ishould

icontinue its ipresent iwork ion ithe idevelopment iof iguidelines iand istandards iregarding iabuse iof

ieconomic iand ipolitical ipower, iCognizant ithat imillions iof ipeople ithroughout ithe iworld isuffer

iharm ias ia iresult iof icrime iand ithe iabuse iof ipower iand ithat ithe irights iof ithese ivictims ihave

inot ibeen iadequately irecognized, iRecognizing ithat ithe ivictims iof icrime iand ithe ivictims iof

iabuse iof ipower, iand ialso ifrequently itheir ifamilies, iwitnesses iand iothers iwho iaid ithem, iare

iunjustly isubjected ito iloss, idamage ior injury iand ithat ithey imay, in iaddition, isuffer ihardship

iwhen iassisting in ithe iprosecution iof ioffenders, i1. iAffirms ithe inecessity iof iadopting inational

iand international imeasures in iorder ito isecure ithe iuniversal iand ieffective irecognition iof, iand

irespect ifor, ithe irights iof ivictims iof icrime iand iof iabuse iof ipower; i2. iStresses ithe ineed ito

ipromote iprogress iby iall iStates in itheir iefforts ito ithat iend, iwithout iprejudice ito ithe irights

iofsuspects ior ioffenders; i3. iAdopts ithe iDeclaration iof iBasic iPrinciples iof iJustice ifor iVictims

iof iCrime iand iAbuse iof iPower, iannexed ito ithe ipresent iresolution, iwhich is idesigned ito iassist

iGovernments iand ithe international icommunity in itheir iefforts ito isecure ijustice iand iassistance

ifor ivictims iof icrime iand ivictims iof iabuse iofpower; i4. iCalls iupon iMember iStates ito itake ithe

inecessary isteps ito igive ieffect.

to ithe iprovisions icontained in ithe iDeclaration iand, in iorder ito icurtail ivictimization ias ireferred
ito ihereinafter, iendeavour: i

(a) iTo implement isocial, ihealth, including imental ihealth, ieducational, ieconomic iand ispecific
icrime iprevention ipolicies ito ireduce ivictimization iand iencourage iassistance ito ivictims in

idistress; i

(b) iTo ipromote icommunity iefforts iand ipublic iparticipation in icrime iprevention; i

(c) iTo ireview iperiodically itheir iexisting ilegislation iand ipractices in iorder ito iensure
iresponsiveness ito ichanging icircumstances, iand ito ienact iand ienforce ilegislation iproscribing

iacts ithat iviolate internationally irecognized inorms irelating ito ihuman irights, icorporate iconduct,

iand iother iabuses iofpower; i

d) iTo iestablish iand istrengthen ithe imeans iof idetecting, iprosecuting iand isentencing ithose iguilty
iof icrimes; i

(e) iTo ipromote idisclosure iof irelevant information ito iexpose iofficial iand icorporate iconduct ito
ipublic iscrutiny, iand iother iways iof increasing iresponsiveness ito ipublic iconcerns; i

(f) iTo ipromote ithe iobservance iof icodes iof iconduct iand iethical inorms, in iparticular
international istandards, iby ipublic iservants, including ilaw ienforcement, icorrectional, imedical,

isocial iservice iand imilitary ipersonnel, ias iwell ias ithe istaff iof ieconomic ienterprises; i

(g) iTo iprohibit ipractices iand iprocedures iconducive ito iabuse, isuch ias isecret iplaces iof
idetention iand in icommunicado idetention;

(h) iTo ico-operate iwith iother iStates, ithrough imutual ijudicial iand iadministrative iassistance, in
isuch imatters ias ithe idetection iand ipursuit iof ioffenders, itheir iextradition iand ithe iseizure

ioftheir iassets, ito ibe iused ifor irestitution ito ithe ivictims.

Plight iOf iVictims in india

In india ivictims iare ideprived iof itheir irights iunder ithe icriminal ijustice isystem iand ithey iare
itreated ias imere iwitnesses ifor iprosecuting iand ipunishing ithe ioffenders. iVictims iwho ihave

isuffered iharm iare ijust icompensated ifor ithe idamages ithat ithey ihave isuffered ithrough icivil ilaw

iand ithe iaccused is iheld iresponsible ifor isuch icompensation. iCompounding ithe ivictim is

iconsidered ias ijustice iunder ithe indian iCriminal iJustice iSystem.

I. The iConstitutional iRemedies ifor iHuman iRights iViolation

II. The iCriminal iProcedure iCode, i1973 i(herein iCrPC)

III. The iFatal iAccidents iAct, i1855

IV. The iProbation iof iOffenders iAct, i1958

V. The iMotor iVehicles iAct, i1988

Victims iof ia icrime iare iawarded iwith icompensation ifor ithe iloss ithey ihave isuffered ibased ion
ithe iabove imentioned istatutes. iProtecting icitizens iand itheir iproperty ifrom iany ikind iof iharm is

iconsidered ias ithe iprimary iobjective iof ithe istate iunder ithe iCriminal iJustice iSystem. iThe istate,

itherefore, icarries ion ithis iduty iby iensuring ithat ithe icitizens ido inot itake ilaw into itheir ihands ito

isatisfy itheir interests. iWhen ia icrime is icommitted, iagainst ithe inorms iand iprinciples iof ithe

isociety, istate itself ibecomes ia ivictim ifor iprosecuting iand ipunishing ithe ioffender.

Criminal iJustice isystem iconcentrates ion ithe icrime, ithe ioffender, itrial iof ithe icase, iproving ithe
ioffender iguilty iand iawarding ipunishment. iAfter iplaying itheir irole ias iwitnesses in ithe

iproceedings, ithe ivictims iare iforgotten iand imarginalized. iThey iare inot iprovided iwith iany

iassistance iand iwhen ithey iare inot icared iof, it icreates ia isense iof iangst in ithem iwhich imay

isubsequently ilead ito idistortions in ithe iCriminal iJustice iSystem.

Therefore, ithere is ia idire ineed ito ishift iour ifocus ifrom ithe ioffenders ito ithe ivictims iwho ihave
isuffered isubstantial injury. iAs ilike ihow ithe itransformation ito icrimes ifrom itorts itook iplace iwe

ialso ineed isuch itransformation ion ithis iregard. in icase iof ia icognizable ioffence, if ia ivictim iof

ithe ioffence iapproaches ithe ipolice ito igive information, ithe ipolice is iobligated ito irecord ithe

information in iwriting iand ithe isame iafter ibeing iread iout ito ithe ivictim/informant ihas ito ibe

isigned iby ithe informant.

The ipolice icannot irefuse ito iprovide ithe informant iwith ia icopy iof ithe iFirst information iReport
iaccording ito isec. i154(1) iand i(2) iof iCrPC. iThe ivictim/informant ican isend ithe information in
ithe iform iof iwriting ito ithe iSuperintendent iof iPolice iprovided ithe ipolice idenies ito irecord ithe

isame iunder isec.154 i(3) iof iCrPC. if in icase ithe ipolice iofficer irefuses ito investigate ithe imatter,

ihe/she is irequired ito istate ithe ireason ifor inot iproceeding iwith ithe issue ito ithe informant in ithe

iform iof ifacts.

This is ilaid idown in isec. i157(2) iof iCrPC. iGenerally, ithe icomplainants iare inot itreated iwell iby
ithe ipolice iand iat itimes instead iof iattending ito itheir igrievances ithey iare ibeing iharassed iat

ipolice istations. iNot ievery itime ithe icomplaints iare irecorded itruthfully iby ithe ipolice iand in

imany icases ithe ifacts iare ieither imanipulated ior idistorted iaccording ito itheir iconvenience.

iOffences ithat iare icognizable iare imade ias inon-cognizable iand ivice- iversa.

We ican ialso ifind ithat imany ia itimes iaccused ihimself igives ithe icomplaint iand ithe investigation
is initiated iby ihim. iThese imay ibe isome ipotential ireasons iwhy ithe ivictims iget ithemselves

idetached ifrom ithe isystem ias isuch. iThough ivictims iunder isec. i190 iof iCrPC. ihave ithe iright ito

iapproach ithe iMagistrate idirectly iwith ihis icomplaint ithereby iavoiding ithe iredress iby ivisiting

ithe ipolice istation, ithe iprocess iof investigation is ientirely in ithe ihands iof ithe ipolice.

The ivictims ihave itheir irole ionly iwhen ithe ipolice ifeel iso. iOnly in icertain istates ithe ipolice iare
instructed ito iprovide ithe ivictims iwith ithe information iregarding ithe investigation iprocess iwhen

ithey iask ifor it.

The iplight iof ithe ivictims is ipitiable iuntil iand iotherwise ithe ipolice ifile ithe icharge isheet iunder
isec.173 iof iCrPC. iThe iMagistrate iafter itaking icognizance iof ithe icharge isheet idecides ias ito

iwhether ithe iproceedings ican ibe idropped iand if iso, ihe issues inotice ito ithe informant ito ihear ihis

igrievances ias irequired iof ihim. iBut ithe idropping iof ithe iproceedings iwould inot iprovide ithe

ivictim iwith ian iopportunity ito ibe iheard. iUnder isec.250 iof iCrPC. ithe informants iare irequired

ito ipay icompensations ito ithose iaccused iof ioffence iwithout ijust icause/reason iunder ithe

idirection iof ithe iMagistrate. it is irecognized iunder isec.357A iof iCrPC. ithat iconviction iof ithe

ioffender is inot irequired ito iprovide ivictims iwith ifinancial ireliefs.

CONCLUSION iAND iSUGGESTIONS

Crime iis ia iproduct iof isociety, isocial iconditions iand ia iproduct iof isituations. iNo ione iis iborn
icriminal. i“Every isaint ihas ia ipast iand ievery isinner ihas ia ifuture,” igoes ia ipopular isaying.

iHindu iJurisprudence icontemplates ipenance iand imeditation ifor icriminal ito ihave iboth

iprayaschita iand ireformation. iEvery iindividual iincluding icriminal ihas igot ia idivine ispark iand

iwhat iis irequired ion iour ipart iis ito ikindle iand irekindle iit ito ienable ithe isociety ito iredeem iand,

ito ireclaim ihim iand ito irestore iand irehabilitate ihim iin isociety ias ia iuseful iand iproductive

ihuman ibeing. iPurpose iof ipunishment iin icriminal icases iis iboth ipunitive iand ireformative. i

The ipurpose iis ithat ithe iperson ifound iguilty iof icommitting ioffence iis imade ito irealize ihis ifault
iand iis ideterred ifrom irepeating isuch iacts iin ifuture. iThe ireformative iaspect iis imeant ito ienable
ithe iperson iconcerned ito irelent iand irepent ifor ihis iaction iand imake ihimself iacceptable ito ithe

70
isociety ias ia iuseful isocial ibeing. i

SUGGESTIONS
A ilot iof iwork iis ineeded ito ibe idone ito igive icrime ivictim iits iwell ideserved iplace iin isociety
iand ito iensure ihis ieffective irestoration iand irehabilitation. iFor ithis ipurpose ithere iare ifollowing

isuggestions:- i

1) iAmendment iin iSection i357 iof iCriminal iProcedure iCode

:- iSection i357 ishould ibe iamended. iAn iexplanation ishould ibe iinserted iin iit ifor ithe ipurpose iof
irecording ireasons ifor inot iawarding icompensation, ias iit iwas isuggested iby iLaw iCommission

iin iits i42nd iReport. iAt ithe itime iof isentencing ithe iaccused igives icompensation ii.e. irupees

i25,000/- iin icase iof ibodily iinjury inot iresulting iin ideath, irupees, i1 ilakh iin icase iof ideath

ishould ibe iawarded, ias isuggested iby iLaw iCommission iin iits i152nd ireport. iParliament ihas inot

igiven ieffect ito ithese irecommendations iof ithe iLaw iCommission. iPeriodically ithe iamount iof

icompensation ishould ibe irevised. i

2) iGrant iof iCompensation iby iLower iCourts

iLower icourts ishould ialso iuse ithe ipower ito igrant icompensation iunder iSection i357 iof

iCriminal iProcedure iCode. iSupreme iCourt ihas iurged iagain iand iagain ithat ipower ito igrant

icompensation iis inot iancillary ibut iin iaddition ito ithe iother isentence. iAs ithe iLaw iCommission

iof iIndia iin iits i42nd iReport iadmitted ithat iour icourts inot iparticularly iliberal iin iutilizing ithe i%

iprovisions isuch ias isection i357.

70
Karamjit iSingh iV. iState iAIR i2000 iSC i3457.
3) iAmendment iin iSection i360 iCriminal iProcedure iCode:-

iSection i360 iof iCriminal iProcedure iCode iwhich ideals iwith iorder ito irelease ithe iaccused ion

iprobation iof igood iconduct ior iafter iadmonition iis isilent ion ithe iissue iof icompensation. iLike

iSection i5 iof iProbation iof iOffenders iAct, i1958. iHere ialso ithere ishould ibe iprovision ithat ithe

icourt ican irequire ioffenders ito ipay icompensation iand icosts. iSpecial ireasons ibe irecorded ifor

inot iawarding icompensation iin icases iwhere ithe iperson iis ireleased ion iprobation ieither iunder

isection i360 iof iCriminal iProcedure iCode ior iunder isection i5 iof iProbation iof iOffenders iAct,

i1958.

4) iAmendment iin iSection i361 iCriminal iProcedure iCode:-

iIn iSection i361 iof iCriminal iProcedure iCode, ithere ican ibe ia iprovision ithat ispecial ireasons iare

ito ibe irecorded iin icase icompensation iis inot iawarded iunder iSection i357, ialong iwith i97

iclause.(a),(b) ii.e. ia iclause i(c) ican ibe iinserted ifor ithe ibenefit iofvictims iof icrime.

5) iAmount iof iCompensation

iAmount iof icompensation iunder iSection i358 ii.e. ifor ipersons igroundlessly iarrested iis ivery

iless. iEarlier iit iwas ijust irupees ihundred ithough inow iit ihas ibeen iincreased ito irupees ithousand

iby iCriminal iProcedure iCode(Amendment) iAct, i2005 ibut istill ithe iamount iis ivery iless ifrom

ithe ipoint iof iview iof ithe isuffering iofthe iinnocent ivictim. iThe ilimit iof icompensation iof iRs.

i1000 ishould ibe iremoved.

6.)Reforms iin iPolice iMachinery

iIt ihas ibeen ifound ithat imost iof ithe iproblems iwhich ithe ivictims ifaced iare ibecause iof

iefficiency, iincompetency iand iwide ispread icorruption iin ithe ipolice iorganization. iHalf ithe

iproblems iof ivictims iwill ibe isolved iif ithis iorganization iis iefficient iand icompetent. iAnother

iimportant isuggestion iis ithe ireforms iin ithe iPolice imachinery; iold iPolice iAct iof i1861 ihas

ibecome iredundant iin ithe ipresent iscenario. iMisuse iand iabuse iof ipolice ihas ireduced iit ito ithe

istatus iof ia imere itool iin ithe ihands iof iunscrupulous imasters iand iin ithe iprocess iit ihas icaused

iserious iviolations iof ithe irights iof ithe ipeople ias irightly iobserved iby iHon’ble iApex iCourt iin

71
iParkash iSingh iand iothers iv. iUnion iofIndia iand iothers.

7) iVictim iParticipation:-

iCriminal iProcedure iCode iassigns ia ilimited irole ito ia ivictim iof icrime ito iparticipate iin ithe

icriminal ijustice isystem. iA icrime ivictim iby ivirtue iof isection i190 iof ithe iCode imay idirectly

iapproach ithe imagistrate iconcerned iwith ihis icomplaint iwithout igoing ito ithe ipolice ifor iredress.

iThereafter ia icrime ivictim idoes inot

8) iRight ito iSeek iState iAssistance

iIn i1996, iNational iLaw iSchool iof iIndia iUniversity i, iBangalore i(NLSIU) iprepared ia idraft ibill

i‘The iVictim i(criminal iinjuries i) iRight ito iAssistance iBill, i1996 i(hereinafter ireferred ias

iNLSIU iBill.) iendeavors ito ioffer ia icomparatively ibetter icomprehensive icompensatory ischeme

ifor ia icrime ivictim, iwho ihas ia idirect iconsequence iof icrime, ihas isuffered ideath ior iinjury iby

iconferring ion ihim i(and ior ihis idependent), iirrespective iof iacquittal iand i/or iconviction iofthe

ioffender iby ia icompetent icourt, ithe iright ito ireceive icompensation ifrom ithe icompetent

i‘Authority’ idesigned iunder ithe ibill. iIt iprovides ifor ithe icreation iof i‘Crime iAssistance iFund’

iat ithe iNational, iState iand iDistrict iLevels, iby iCentral iGovernment, iState iGovernments

iconcerned, idonations iand isums ireceived iby ithe iAuthority, iNational ior istate iunder iorders iof

71
i(2006) i8 iSCC i1,2006 i(9) iSCALE i444
 72
ithe icourt ito imake ithe ipayment ito ivictims iof icriminal iinjuries. iIt icontemplates ithree itier

iauthorities ito irender iassistance ito icrime ivictims iand itheir idependents.

9) iRestorative iJustice

iIn iIndia iRestorative iJustices iPractices iare iin iinitial istages iat ipresent. iIn iorder ito iimplement

ithe iconcept iof iRestorative iJustice iin iits ireal isense ifollowing isteps imay ibe iconsidered;- i

a) iAwareness i:- iThere iis ineed iof iawareness iregarding iRestorative iJustice. iFor ithis ipurpose
iprint iand ielectronic imedia ican ihelp, iseminars, iinteractions ican ibe iheld ito ieducate ithe ipeople

iabout irestorative ijustice iand iplight iof ivictims iof icrime. iResearch iprojects ican ibe iconducted

iat iuniversity ilevel iso ithat imore iand imore ipeople ican ijoin ithis imovement. iSocial iworkers,

iNGO’s ican iplay ia ivital irole iin ithis iregard. iRestorative iJustice ican ibe iincluded ias ia isubject iin

icurriculum. iThe iconcept ishould ibe ireproduced iin ilocal ilanguage iso ithat icommon ipeople ican

iunderstand ithe isame.

ib) iSpecial iTraining ito iJudicial iOfficers, iLaw iTeachers i:- iSpecialized itraining ishould ibe

iprovided ito iJudicial iofficers, ilawyers, iprosecutors iand ilaw iteachers ito isensitize ithem itowards

ithe ineed iof ivictims iof icrime.

10) i iCompensation i iat i ithe i iEarliest

Of ithe ipresent isystem iof icourts, iorder iof ipayment iof icompensation ito ithe ivictim iby iaccused
irequires iorder iof iconviction iand isentence ias ia ipre-condition. iThe ivictim iis ineeded ito ibe

icompensated iat ithe iearliest, isince iit iis ithe iobligation iofthe istate ito iprotect ithe iindividu ial

iinterests, iState ishould ibe imade ito ipay iimmediate icompensation ito ithe ivictim iwithout ithe

iburden iof iany iadditional icivil isuit ito ibe ifiled iby ithe ivictim. iLater ion iifthe iaccused iis

72
Vibhute, iK.I iCriminal iJustice: iA iHuman iRights iPerspective ithe iCriminal iJustice iProcess iin iIndia i( iEastern
iBook iCompany), i2004 ip.381
iconvicted ithecompensation iawarded ito ithe ivictim imay ibe irecovered ifully ior ipartly ifrom ithe iconvict

ias iper ihis/her icapacity.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Randhawa, iGurpreet iSingh, iVictimology iand iCompensatory iJurisprudence, i1st iEd.,

iCentral iLaw iPublications, iAllahabad, i2011.

• The iCriminal iProcedure iCode,

• Vibhute, iK.I.: iCriminal iJustice: iA iHuman iRights iPerspective iof ithe iCriminal iJustice
iProcess in india i(Eastern iBook iCompany) i

• Quickening ithe ipace iof ijustice‟ iArticle iby iSantosh iSingh iSahib ipublished in iThe
iTribune iJanuary i21, i2006 i[37](1995) iSCC i14; i(1995) i1 iSCJ i94 i[38] ihttp://

iarticles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com i.

• Dr.A.P.J. iAbdul iKalam;The iHon‟ble iPresident iof india i„Scope iof iJudiciary: iTowards
ispeedy idispensation iof iJustice.‟ i

• Karamjit iSingh iV. iState iAIR i2000 iSC i3457 i

• AIR i1998 iSC i3164
• i(1981) i2 iSCC i493 iat ip.504

• AIR i1983 iSC i1086

• iAIR i1993 iSC i1960

• i2002 i(2) iCriminal iCourt iCases i141 i(Delhi)

• i(2005) i3 iCriminal iCourt iCases i522 i(S.C.)

• i(1995) i1 iSCC i14 i

• i(1996) i1 iSCC i490 i

• i(1996) i1 iSCC i490

• AIR i1997 iSC i3011

• AIR i1978 iSC i1525 i
• iAIR i1988 iSC i2127

• iAIR i1988 iSC i3164 iPara i49 i

• i2005 iSCC i(Cri) i1420

• CWP i6319 iof i2008.

• iKali iRam iv. iState iof iH.P. i

• iShivani iSahabaro iBobade iv. iState iof iMaharashtra

• iJudiciary iand iTraining‟, i(2004(7) iSCC i(J) i39, iat ipage i43) iquoted in iCWP i6319 iof

i2008 i

• iThe indian iExpress iNews iPaper i

• iOriental insurance iCo. iv. iMrs. iZarifa, iAIR i1995 iJ&K81 iat ip.84 i

• Balraj iV. iState iof iU.P. iAIR i1995 iSC i1935, iArjunan iV. iState iof iT.N. i(1997) i2 iCrimes
i447 i(Mad.) i

• i(2006) i8 iSCC i1, i2006 i(9) iSCALE i444

• Section i321 iof ithe iCriminal iProcedure iCode,1973. iProviso ito iSection i24 inserted iby
iCriminal iProcedure iCode(Amendment) iAct,2008 igives ivictim ia iright ito iappoint

icounsel ion ihis ibehalf. iHowever ieven inow icounsel iappointed iby ithe ivictim is ito iassist

ithe ipublic iprosecutor. i

• Victim iProtection iunder iStatute iof iCC iChapter iII ip.43 i

• i(1995) i1 iSCC i14 i[40]