VICTIM AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: A NEED FOR PARADIGM SHIFT

 

VICTIM AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: A NEED FOR PARADIGM SHIFT

Introduction

The concept of crime is concerned with the social order. There cannot be any society without the crime because living in a society leads to conflict of interest and would give rise to the need for administration of justice. Crime is a very complex issue. Now it’s become a part of our society (inseparable from civilized life). Every day we read or hear about the crime from various sources such as TV and newspaper. Now a major question arise on which we should emphasized more the crime, offender and victim? Criminal is a person who has committed a crime. In today’s time there are many sociological issues that make the person criminally liable. Now a major question arises whether the criminals are born or made? No, absolutely no!  Here is why because there are two major factors that make a person criminally liable i.e. economic factors and family issues. In most of the cases the purpose behind committing a crime is always economic in nature because with economic growth people’s craze for wealth and other’s luxuries life has increased.

 

Impact of crime on victim

Crime does not only affect the direct victim but it also affects the family of the victim, friends and society as well. The impact of crime on the victim results in physical injury, anxiety, psychological stress and lack of sleep etc. The impact of crime can also last for a long time because some people are capable enough to deal with the terrible crime while others may be very distressed by a minor incident. But sometimes it becomes more difficult to deal with the crime in case of domestic violence as it is an ongoing crime and goes unreported because of fear and family pressure. We can say that victimization of women has been increased. It is difficult to know the extent of female victimization. The reason behind that in most of the cases women suffer victimization without the case being reported to the police. The victimization of women includes rape, kidnapping, sexual harassment and dowry death that can also have a wide impact. To protect  the rights of women several laws were passed by the parliament of India such as the protection of women from  domestic violence act 2005, Dowry Prohibition  act, 1961, Sexual harassment of women at workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal act, 2013) and Medical Termination of Pregnancy act, 1971. The government of India launched a various schemes and programmes such as Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao for women empowerment.

 

Criminal Victimization in Present’s Scenario

There has been considerable growth in crime rate in the past few years. The crime is not in India alone but the incidence of crime in western countries is much greater than that of India. Our criminal justice system focuses more on offender, in controlling the crime rate rather than to compensate the victim. They are treated as an ignorant person of the society. The needs of the victim are as important as the need to punish the offenders. Victims are members of the society to which they have contributed but the government has failed to protect them. Now a major question arises why an interest of the victim of crime remains misrepresented before the criminal court? As in criminal court no one represents the interest of the victim of crime or his/her family. The statute under which compensation may be awarded to the victims of crime i.e. Code of criminal procedure 1973, probation of offender act, 1958 and motor vehicle act, 1988. In today’s time poor, disabled and socially neglected people are more likely to be the victim of crime.

 

Criminal Justice administration in India

The criminal justice system was adopted from the British model. The object of the criminal law is to protect society against criminals and maintenance of public order. There are two main laws which deals with administration of criminal cases in our country are Criminal procedure code and Indian penal code. In earlier times every man was liable to be attacked in person or property at any time by anyone. “A tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye was followed by everyone”. But with the changing norms of the society people started to accept the change. But in the past few years judiciary has come forward with a helping hand to give some relief to the victims of crime i.e. to compensate the victim under section 357-A of Crpc.

 As every coin has two sides there are also some defects in the criminal justice administration of India because in prison perpetrator is fed, clothed and educated at the expenses of the state from the taxes that the victim pays to the treasury. Now we can say that victim is contributing towards the care of prisoners instead of being looked after. The role of the victim of crime is entirely overlooked. The criminal justice administration in India is based on the phenomenon that “let hundred guilty go unpunished rather than single innocent be punished”. Now a question arises “does this still exist now”. No, because most of the people become victims of crime that is committed by others and an innocent has to suffer because of the mistake of others. So, is it justice in true sense? No, it is not always justice that is rendered by the courts. The poor people even can’t reach the temple of justice because of poor economic conditions and making the legal process costlier is an indirect denial of justice.

 

CASE LAWS- TOWARDS VICTIM JUSTICE

The first landmark judgment where compensation to the victim ordered by the madras high court was Palaniappa gounder v state of tamilnadu
(AIR 1977 SC 1323). In this case the appellant was convicted under sec 302 and the high court of madras upheld the conviction under sec 392 but reduced the sentence from death to imprisonment of life. The high court of madras imposed a fine of rs 20,000 on the appellant and directed that out of the fine, a sum of rs.15,000 should be paid to the son and daughters of the deceased under sec 357(1)(c) of the crpc, 1973.

In the case of Sarwan singh v state of punjab(AIR 1978 SC 1525), the supreme court not only reiterated its previous standpoint but also laid down in an exhaustive manner , points to be taken into account while imposing fine or compensation. The hon’ble court observed that while awarding compensation , it is necessary for the court to decide whether the case is fit enough to award compensation. If the case is found fit for compensation, then the capacity of the accused to pay the fixed amount has to be determined.

The court also observed that:

It is the duty of the court to take into consideration the things such as nature of the crime, the injury suffered, the justness of the claim for compensation, the capacity of the accused to pay while fixing the amount of fine or compensation. After consideration of all facts of the case, we feel that in addition to the sentence of  5 years rigorous imprisonment, a fine of rs.35,000 on each of the accused under sec 304(1), IPC should be imposed.

In Guruswamy v. state of tamil nadu (1979 CrL 704), the accused was convicted under sec 302. The victims were the father and brother of the appellant. While reducing the sentences from death sentence to imprisonment for life, the supreme court held that the offence was committed during a family quarrel so the imposition of extreme penalty was uncalled as the case doesn’t fall under the rarest of rare case. The court imposed a fine of rs.10,000 to the appellant and ordered the same to be paid as compensation to the dependants of the victim.

 

The case of Hari krishan and the state of haryana v. sukhbir & ors.(AIR 1988 SC 2127)  is the most important case after sarwan singh where the court repeated its firm understanding once again in the following words:

“the power under sec 357 crpc is a measure of responding appropriately to crime as well as reconciling the victim with the offender. It is  to some extent a recompensatory measure to rehabilitate to an extent the beleaguered victims of the crime a modern constructive approach to crime, a step forward in our criminal justice system… the payment by way of compensation must always be reasonable. What is reasonable may depend upon the facts and circumstances of each and every case.”

 

Rachhpal singh v. state of punjab (2002 Cr LJ 3540 SC)

The present case occurred due to a civil dispute pending between the deceased and the appellant. The deceased obtained an interim order pertaining to the civil dispute. This in turn led to a fight between the deceased and the appellants. The first appellant armed with a gun and the second appellant armed with a rifle alnogwith three other accused attacked the deceased. The first and second appellant fired shots at the two deceased and they received two bullet injuries each and died on the spot. The sessions judge after considering the materials palced before him, found the appellants gulity and convicted and sentenced the first two appellants to death for an offence under sec 302 IPC and the other accused  to life imprisonment. Against this order the accused preferred an appeal challenging the convictions and sentences. The complainant also separately preferred a criminal revision petition praying for compensation under sec 357 crpc. The high court found that imposition of capital punishment was uncalled as the case doesn’t fall under the rarest of rare case and hence their sentence was reduced to imprisonment for life. With regard to the other three accused, they were acquitted under section 302 read with 148 IPC. while considering the revision petiton, the high court held that it was a fit case for exercising the jurisdiction under sec 357 crpc and directed each of the appellant to pay a sum of rs.2,00,000 and undergone a sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment. Against this order the appellants filed an appeal before the apex courtr. The apex court after having heard the learned counsels upheld the conviction and sentence.

The court also observed that it is a fit case to exercise Jurisdiction under sec 357crpc. The court after having gone through the records and materials found that the appellants are capable of paying atleast rs.1,00,000 per head as compensation. Therefore, the order of the high court is modified by reducing the compensation payable from rs 2,00,000 each to rs.1,00,000 each.

 

In the case of Mangilal v. state of madhya pradesh(AIR 2004 SC 1280), the supreme court held that the power of the court to award compensation to the victims under section 357 is not ancillary to other sentences but in addition thereto. The basic difference subsection (1) and (3) of the section 357 is that in the former case, the imposition of fine is the basic and essential requirement, while in the latter even the absence thereof empowers the court to direct payment of compensation. Such power is availing to be exercised by an appellate court, the high court or the court of sessions when exercising revisional powers.

 

Bipin Bihari v. state of Mdhya Pradesh(2005 CrLJ 2048 MP)

In this case the charge was framed under sec 307 Ipc against the appellant. The trial court convicted the appellant under section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay a fine of rs.5000 in default of which he was to undergo two years of simple imprisonment. The trial court directed that the fine amount be paid to the complainant as compensation under sec 357 crpc. The appellant preferred an appeal against this order in the high court . the high court after having heard the learned counsels held that it was not justified to impose sentence of life imprisonment on the appellant. Further it was held that it would be proper to impose two years rigorous imprisonment. Regarding the award of compensation the court referred to the case of Bhaskaran v. Sankaran vaidhyan Balan (AIR 1999 SC 3762), in which the apex cout while considering the scope of section 357(3) crpc laid down that the magistrate cannot restrict itself in awarding  compensation under sec 357(3) since there is no limit in sub-section (3) and therefore the magistrate can award any sum of compensation. Further it was held that while fixing the quantum of compensation the magistrate should consider what would be the reasonable amount of compensation payable to the complainant by the offender.

 

Manjappa v. state of Karnataka (2007 SCCL COM 599)

In this case, the appellant/accused had voluntarily caused simple hurt to the complainant. The appellant assaulted the complainant with a stone resulting in grievous injuries to the complainant. Moreover, the appellant/accused intentionally insulted the complainant by using abusive languages and provoked him with the intention that such provocation would make the complainant to break public peace or to commit other offences. The court framed the charges under sections 323, 325 and 504 of the IPC. The trial court held that the prosecution proved the accused had caused the simple as well as grievous injury to the complainant and upheld the conviction under sections 323 and 325 IPC. However, regarding the third charge the court stated that the prosecution was not able to establish it and the accused was ordered to be acquitted.

Regarding the first charge the trial court  awarded simple imprisonment for 3 months and a fine of rs.500 in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.

Regarding the second charge the trial court awarded simple imprisonment for 1 year and a fine of rs.3000 in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months.

Against this order of conviction and sentence the appellant preferred an appeal in the court of session judge. The session judge after considering the evidence and hearing the arguments acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under sec 323 IPC and set aside the order of conviction and sentence. He , however upheld the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under sec 325 IPC. The appellate court modified the order of the trial court by reducing the sentence from 1 year to 6 months but maintained the order to pay compensation of rs 3000 to the complainant. The sentence of fine and compensation  passed by the trial court was confirmed.

The appellant filed a revision petition in the high court challenging the order of the court of sessions. The high court partly allowed the revision by reducing the sentence and ordering the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month and to pay a fine of rs.1000 in addition to what was ordered by the courts below.

The appellant again approached the supreme court against the order passed by the high court. The supreme court in their order after “keeping in view all the facts and circumstances” stated that the substantive sentence which the appellant has already undergone is sufficient.

An analysis of the above shows that the courts in india have started realizing the importance of the victim and the necessity. Now the victim is not the forgotten persons in the criminal justice system of india. At least at the higher level , the court has been more concerned for the victim and their rehabilation in the society.

 

Conclusion

Our criminal justice system is in endanger because there are 65,000 cases pending in the Supreme Court, a total of 42 lakh cases in high courts and 2.9 crore in trial courts. Here, poor people feel that Indian judiciary gives priority to the rich and powerful person while they are ignored. According to the common people rich man gets speedy justice. On the other hand, the judiciary needs to strengthen the rights of victim in India. The compensation given under section 357 is not adequate and interim compensation must be paid to the victim and delay in payment of compensation must be avoided. There must be an expeditious judiciary. The awareness camps must be organized to create awareness of victim compensation scheme. Charities for victim support must be established as it will help a lot to the victim of crime. Institutional mechanism must be established to help the victim of rape, domestic or sexual violence.