1

Victims, Victimization and Victimology

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

1.1 HISTORY OF VICTIMOLOGY

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

While judiciary is generally concerned with protecting the interests of society, liberal
criminologists till recently were concerned with protecting the interests of criminal.
Radical criminologists have now started talking of protecting the interests of the victims
of crime. This has resulted in the growth of victimology as a science. Therefore the study
of victims is said to be a new field. Twenty years ago it would have been difficult to find
any criminological agency (officials, professionals, voluntary group etc) or research
group working in the field of victims of crime or which considered crime victims as
having any central relevance to the subject apart from being a sad product of the activity
under study of criminality. To officials the victim was merely a witness in the court case,
to researchers either the victim was totally ignored or was used as a source of information
about crime and criminals. Until very recently there was a striking lack of information
about victims and even now the knowledge is still fairly sketchy, limited to certain crimes
and often to certain types of victims. This ignorance is astonishing when one considers
that the criminal justice system would collapse if victims were to refuse to cooperate.
Some victims have found that there treatments by the officials in the criminal justice

pg. 1 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur, 2005
 2

system - the police, lawyers, Court Officials, Judges and Compensations Boards- to be
too stressful, demeaning, unfair, disregarding of their feelings, rights, needs and interests.
Sometimes they see the system as a second victimization, which can be more unpleasant
than the original crime. In such cases they may become disenchanted with the system and
choose not to report or to cooperate in the future. Their experiences may also affect their
friends and family, and even the general public, spreading a general reluctance to
cooperate. The syndrome is best known in rape cases where few women are willing to
cooperate, but it also exists in other areas.

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

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

pg. 2 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur, 2005
 3

also reacted positively, especially in areas where they had obtained a reputation for
insensitivity. For example, they now occasionally provide rape suites and arrange
screening for witnesses in identification parades.
_______________________________________________________________________
1.1 HISTORY OF VICTIMOLOGY________________________________________

At first (going back to the origins of criminology in the 1880s), anything resembling
victimology was simply the study of crime from the perspective of the victim. With the
exception of some psychological profilers who do this, nobody really advocates this
approach to victimology anymore. The scientific study of victimology can be traced back
to the 1940s and 1950s. Two criminologists, Mendelsohn and Von Hentig, began to
explore the field of victimology by creating "typologies". They are considered the
"fathers of the study of victimology."

Von Hentig's work provided the foundation for analysis of victim-precipitation that is
still somewhat evident in the literature today. Wolfgang's research (1958) followed this
lead and later theorized "many victim-precipitated homicides were, in fact, caused by the
unconscious desire of the victims to commit suicide". Schafer's theoretical work (1968)
also represented how victimology invested a substantial amount of its energy to the study
of how victims contribute - knowingly or unknowingly -- to their own victimization, and
potential ways they may share responsibility with offenders for specific crimes. In fact,
Schafer's book, The Victim and His Criminal, from this approach, is supposed to be a
corrective to Von Hentig's book, The Criminal and His Victim. These new
"victimologists" began to study the behaviors and vulnerabilities of victims, such as the
resistance of rape victims and characteristics of the types of people who were victims of
crime, especially murder victims.

As Stated above the most notable early contributor to what he called ‘Victimology’ was
D. Mandelson (1947). Although many criminologists, psychologists and social thinkers
before Mandelson were also concerned about the victim in crime. Amongst them the
Pioneers were Von Hentig and H. Ellen Berger. Von Hentig in his essay The criminal

pg. 3 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur, 2005
 4

and his Victim and Henry Ellen Berger in his article Psychological relationship between
the criminal and his Victim had made a good attempt to study victims. Although Hentig
and Berger considered the study of victim to be very important where as Mandelson in
his essay the Origin of Victimology published in 1963 presented it as a full fledged
branch in criminology and explained the structure and objective of this new science.
Hence the credit for systematic and scientific explanation of victim in crime goes to
Mandelson. His work centered on the extent and way in which crime may be said to be
precipitated by the behaviour or the life style of the victim. This early work has had a
partial revival in recent years when, in certain controversial cases, particularly rape cases
it has been suggested that victimization is precipitated or even caused by the victim.

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

pg. 4 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur, 2005
 5

d. Finally suggests ways in which victim may need assistance to recover from the ordeal.
The council of Europe has similarly addressed the problems of victims rights and has
produced one convention, the European convention on the compensation of victim of
violent crime (1983) this entered into force in Britain on 1 June 1990.

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

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

In a narrow sense, victimology is the empirical, factual study of victims of crime and as
such is closely related to criminology and can be regarded as part of the general problem
of crime.

pg. 5 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur, 2005
 6

In a broad sense, victimology is the entire body of knowledge regarding victims,

victimization and the efforts of Society to preserve the rights of the victim.

Hence, it is concerned with knowledge about victims as a whole with an integrated and
interdisciplinary approaches of psychology, psychiatry, social work, politics, education
and public administration.

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

________________________________________________________________________
1.3 MEANING AND DEFINITION ____________

Before we can understand victimology, we need to appreciate that it is a fairly new

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

pg. 6 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur, 2005
 7

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

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

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

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

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

relationship’.

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

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

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

pg. 7 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur, 2005
 8

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

Andrew Karmen, who wrote a text on victimology entitled Crime Victims: An

Introduction to Victimology in 1990, broadly defined victimology as :

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

From this definition, we can see that victimology encompasses the study of:
 Victimization
 Victim-offender relationships
 Victim-criminal justice system relationships
 Victims and the media
 Victims and the costs of crime
 Victims and social movements

pg. 8 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur, 2005
 9

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

______________________________________________________________________
1.4 SUBJECT MATTER_________________________________________________

The subject matter of victimology can be broadly classified into

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

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

b. Victim Participation in crime

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

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

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

pg. 9 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur, 2005
 10

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

________________________________________________________________________
1.5 VICTIMOLOGY : THE APPROACHES_________________________________

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

The victimological mtheod involves the following approaches:

a. Defining the problem - Finding the asymmetry, Analysing responsibility,

Exploring the kinds of harm

b. Measuring true dimension of the problem - Analysing statistics, Observation of

what kind of people are involved, accurately gauging extent of harm.

c. Investigation of how Criminal Justice system handles the problem –

Observing what Criminal Justice system is ignoring, Finding what victim wants,
analysing effects, chronicle emergence of victim's movement.

d. Examination of societal response to problem -Look at issues of constitutional

rights, Analysing proposed legislation, Analysing media reaction, Observing if
anyone is cashing in on the problem

pg. 10 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 11

______________________________________________________________________
1.6_THEORIES IN VICTIMOLOGY______________________________________

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

_____________________________________________________________
1.6.1_LUCKENBILL'S SITUATED TRANSACTION MODEL _______

Luckenbill's Situated Transaction Model was given in [Link] one is commonly

found in sociology of deviance textbooks. The idea is that at the interpersonal
level, crime and victimization is a contest of character. The stages are as follows:

a. Insult - "Your Mother";

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

pg. 11 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 12

___________________________________________________
1.6.2 BENJAMIN & MASTER'S THREEFOLD MODEL_

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

a. Precipitating factors - time, space, being in the wrong place at the

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

______________________________________________________________
1.6.3_COHEN & FELSON'S ROUTINE ACTIVITIES THEORY______

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

a. Suitable targets – Suitable targets are always there due to widespread

poverty.
b. Motivated offenders – There are motivated offenders since victimology,
unlike deterministic criminology, assumes anyone will try to get away
with somtheing if they can; and
c. Absence of guardians - The problem is that there's few defensible spaces
(natural surveillance areas) and in the absence of private security, the
government can't do the job alone.
pg. 12 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 13

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

________________________________________________________________________
2.5._VICTIMOLOGY : THE NEED _____________________________

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

The importance of victimlogy lies in the fact that it

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

pg. 13 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 14

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

pg. 14 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 15

CHAPTER II
WHO IS THE VICTIM?

2.1 MEANING AND DEFINITION

2.2 CLASSIFICATION OF VICTIMS OF CRIME

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

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

There seems to be a commonsense or commonly accepted idea or conception of a victim.

One is that a victim is vulnerable, so that the victim of a street robbery (or mugging) is
often thought of as being elderly, usually female A victim of rape is necessarily female
(men cannot be legally raped), usually young, and must have fought vigorously to defend
herself. Her male attacker must be a stranger to her. She must also be respected otherwise
she is deemed to have no honour to protest. A victim is therefore seen as some one who
has not contributed to the criminality in any way. They are helpless and wholly innocent.
pg. 15 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 16

_______________________________________________________________________
2.1 MEANING___________________________________________________________

Victim in crime has no separate entity. He is viewed in relationship to the offender who
has harmed him. That is why, offender and victim have been described by Mandelson as
‘penal Couple’.

The victim is generally described as ‘a person who has sustained physical, material or
moral damage owing to an unlawful act.’ The victim is not necessarily an individual. It
may also be a collective entity like a family, a firm, a corporation, a group or even a
whole nation.

According to Quinney,’ The Victim is a social construction in the subject-object

relationship in a crime situation’.

Khan and Singh have defined a victim as ‘a social person who has sustained
psychological, physical, material or social damage on account of being the object of
depredation (destruction).’

The term "crime victim" generally refers to any person, group, or entity who has suffered
injury or loss due to illegal activity. The harm can be physical, psychological, or
economic.

The legal definition of "victim" typically includes the following:

A person who has suffered direct, or threatened, physical, emotional or pecuniary

harm as a result of the commission of a crime; or in the case of a victim being an
institutional entity, any of the same harms by an individual or authorized
representative of another entity.

pg. 16 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 17

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

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

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

Article 2. A person may be considered a victim, under this Declaration, regardless of

whether the perpetrator is identified, apprehended, prosecuted or convicted and regardless
of the familial relationship between the perpetrator and the Victim. The term ‘Victim’
also includes, where appropriate, the immediate family or dependents of the direct Victim
and persons who have suffered harm in intervening to assist victims in distress or to
prevent victimization.

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

B. Victims of Power of Abuse

Article 18. ‘Victims’ means those who individually or collectively have suffered harm,
including physical or mental injury, emotional sufferings, economic loss or substantial
impairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omission that do not yet

pg. 17 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 18

constitute violations of national criminal laws but of internationally recognized norms

relating to human rights.

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

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

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

pg. 18 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 19

______________________________________________________________________
2.2 CLASSIFICATION OF THE VICTIMS OF CRIME _______________________

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

Researches indicate that there is a host of individual, situational, and community-level

factors that increase risk of criminal victimization. Let's look at the individual factors.
Individuals can be described in terms of their sociodemographic characteristics.
__________________________________________________
2.2.1 SOCIO - DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS__

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

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

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

pg. 19 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 20

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

c. Urban - Crime and victimization is mostly an urban problem. Urban areas have a
dangerous amount of transience (strangers moving in and out of town), heterogeneity
(mix of different people and places), and disorganization (dilapidation of housing and
buildings).

d. Class - Violence disproportionately affects those from lower socioeconomic classes.

Family income is related to rates of violence and victimization, with lower income
families at a higher risk than those from higher income brackets.
Poverty increases the risk of assault even after controlling for the effects of prior
victimization and sensation seeking.

e. Ethnicity - Racial, ethnic and caste minorities have higher rates of assault than other
Americans.

f. Religion - Certain religious groups tend to be regularly persecuted, and over

represented in hate crime statistics.

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

pg. 20 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 21

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

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

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

Von Hentig (1948) studied victims of homicide, and said that the most likely type of
victim is the "depressive type" who is an easy target, careless and unsuspecting. The
"greedy type" is easily duped because his or her motivation for easy gain lowers his or
pg. 21 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 22

her natural tendency to be suspicious. The "wanton type" is particularly vulnerable to

stresses that occur at a given period of time in the life cycle, such as juvenile victims. The
"tormentor," is the victim of attack from the target of his or her abuse, such as with
battered women.

Thus in simple terms Von Hentig has given following four types of Victims
a. Victims whose injury may be the price of a greater pain e.g. in abortion
b. Victims who bring about the detrimental result partly by their own concurrent
effort e.g. prostitutes
c. Victims who provoke or instigate the offences e.g. by challenging the opponents
to kill him if he can and in an emotional State of mind, the opponent accepts the
challenge and attacks
d. Victims who desire the injury

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

Fattah has described five types of Victims: Non-participating, latent, provocative,

participating and false victims.

Hentig has further classified the attitude of victim as (a) Lethargic Attitude (b)
Submissive or conning attitude (c) Cooperative or contributory attitude and (d)
provocative or investigative attitude.

pg. 22 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 23

Bender and Blau in their study of victims of sex offences in 1965 noted the following
personality traits of victims of sex-offences
a. They are attractive, charming and seductive
b. They are promiscuous
c. They are impulsive and given to fluctuating moods
d. They make adult contacts easily
e. They want pity and demand proof of affection.
f. They have parents who encourage them to be sexy
g. They defy their parents.

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

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

Wolfgang analysed the previous arrest record of the victims and found that ‘In victim –
precipitated cases, a high proportion of victims have previous arrests records than the
offenders. Against 62% victims having previous arrest records. All these studies, thus
clearly point out the role of victim in crime.

pg. 23 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 24

The Victims in general may be broadly classified into twelve categories. They are:
1. Victims of war
2. Victims of Accidents that occur:
a. On road
b. On Railways
c. On the Aircraft
d. On Sea and
e. In the workplace
3. Victims of Abuse of Power by Lawful Authority:
a. Custodial death
b. Death due to firing
c. Groundless Arrest and detention and
d. Unnecessary Harassment
4. Victims of Rape
5. Victims of Criminal Conspiracy, offences of giving fabricating false evidence,
fabricating false documents or forgery of records, valuable documents, certificates
or causing disappearance of evidence by way of destruction or concealment of the
documents, fraudulent acts with the intention of causing bodily or mental harm to
a person, murder, miscarriage, hurt, wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement,
assaults, use of criminal force, Kidnapping, abduction, forced labour, unnatural
offences, theft, extortion, robbery and dacoity, cheating, mischief, arson, criminal
trespass, adultery, bigamy, fraudulent marriage, dowry torture and death,
defamation, criminal intimidation.
6. Victims of Offences relating to manufacture and sale of adulterated, substandard
and prohibited drugs, liquor and food.
7. Victims of offences of smuggling, black marketing, unfair trade practice and
evasion of tax.
8. Victims of Offences committed by Public Servants, such as negligence and
inefficiency in discharging their duties, corruption, bribery and misappropriation
of public funds.

pg. 24 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 25

9. Victims of environmental pollution and wanton destruction of flora and fauna and
public nuisance.
10. Victims of offences pertaining to election.
11. Victims who are also offenders as perpetrators of crimes such as drunkenness,
consummation of narcotic drugs, gambling attempts to commit suicide and
prostitution, which are otherwise known as victimless crimes.
12. Victims who create a compelling situation in which the offenders reacts violently
by committing a criminal act. Sometimes the victim provokes the offender to
commit the crime. Victims of affray, free fight and rioting may also be included in
this category.

Thus the victims of crime and abuse of power can be classified as Victim of offences
committed by private individuals and Victims of abuse of power by the State.

Of the above category of victims of crime, the victims of abuse of power by lawful
authority constitutes an important class of victims, for the victims of abuse of power finds
it very difficult to get the redressed as the wrong doer is none else than the State which is
armed with legislative and administrative powers. It is difficult for the victims of abuse of
power to establish that they are the victims of State violence. Hence, this category of
victims needs more care and attention.

pg. 25 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 26

CHAPTER III
STATUS AND ROLE OF VICTIM IN CRIME

3.1 VICTIM OFFENDER RELATIONSHIP

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

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

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

Thus in the study of any crime status and role of the victim is very important. The status
and role of victim in crime has been analysed under following heads
pg. 26 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 27

______________________________________________________________________
3.1_VICTIM –OFFENDER RELATIONSHIP_______________________________

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

Dr. Ram Ahuja conducted two empirical studies one in 1967-68 on crimes committed by
women which included 136 murders committed by women, and the other on crimes
committed by males against females (that is one in which the victim was a woman) in
1985-86 in which 33 murders were studied. Both the studies has analysed the aspect of
homogeneity and heterogeneity along with various other aspects. Taking 169 murders in
the two studies together, it was found that homogeneity in age between offenders and the
victims existed in 39.4% cases and heterogeneity in 60.6% cases. In terms of sex, the
homogeneity was found only in 13.9% cases and heterogeneity in 86.1% cases. Kinship
relationship was found between the offenders and the victims in 84% cases. In 74.6%
cases, the victim was the member of the offender’s family (spouse: 50.9%, child 10.70%,
secondary Kin (son’s wife, son’s son): 10.1% tertiary Kin (husband’s brother’s wife,
husband’s brother’s son, etc): 2.95) while in 9.5% cases; the victim was a kin from
outside the family. Of the remaining 165 cases, the victim belonged to offenders ‘s
neighbourhood in 8.3% cases, to offender’s village in 6.5%cases and the victim was a

pg. 27 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 28

total strangers in 1.2% cases. This underlines the need for focusing on primary
relationship in murders committed by men or women.

Homogeneity and heterogeneity in sex, age and race have been studied in offender-victim
relationship by scholars in the United States also. Berg and Fox in a study of 500 male
and female murders in Albama in the United States in 1950 found more homogeinity than
heterogeneity in offender-victim relations. Sutherland in a study of 324 female murderers
in 1950 found significantly heterogeneity in offender-victim relationship. Edwin Driver
in his study of 144 cases of murder in M.P. in India in 1961 found striking homogeneity.

_____________________________________________________________________
3.2 INTERACTION BETWEEN THE CRIMINAL AND THE VICTIM________

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

Hence to understand the crime in all aspects the study of victim is also very important.
Berger was of the opinion that there is a mutual relation and psychological interaction
between the criminal and the victim.

Ellen Berger has said ‘There is some degree of mutuality between the offender and the
victim. To know the offender completely, we must also be acquainted with his
contemporary partner- the victim. From a certain perspective, the victim may shape or
mould the offender. A careful investigation of many offences reveals a psychological
interaction between offender and victim that makes one distinguishable from the other.’

Schultz also in his book Crime in Delinquency in 1968 explained that the Aggressor and
the victim are not two contradictory concepts. Aggressor is not always guilty and
criminal and in the same way victim is also not innocent always. Victim and the criminal
pg. 28 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 29

are two mutual exchangeable words. Hence the study of victim is necessitated in the
practical explanation of crime.

Shultz held that ‘The concepts of aggressor and victim are not always absolutely
opposite. The aggressor is not always guilty and the victim is not always innocent. The
terms ‘victims’ and ‘aggressor’ are sometimes interchangeable. The personality of the
victim as a cause of the offence is sometimes more significant than that of the offender.

_______________________________________________________________________
3.3 VICTIM INSTIGATESS THE CRIMINAL _______________________________

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

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

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

pg. 29 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 30

__________________________________
3.3.1.__DIRECT MOTIVATION______

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

___________________________________________
3.3.2. INDIRECT MOTIVATION_________

Schultz also pointed out that the victim can also motivate criminal
indirectly. This is in direct contradiction to direct motivation that is by
indirect invitation to initiation. In this the victim invites the criminal acts.
For example an unmarried girl goes to a doctor and requests him to abort
her and offers him good amount of money and unfortunately the girl dies
in the operation theatre. Then this death is due to indirect reasons by the
victims.

Or in another case a woman attacks her husband with a knife and

snatching the same knife, the husband kills her. Or suppose a person ‘A’
has given a loan of Rs. 5,000 to another person with the condition that he
would return it in two months. When he fails to repay it even in six
months and also tells ‘ A’ that he has not taken any loan from him and he
is free to take any action, ‘A’ assaults ‘B’, who is then hospitalized.

pg. 30 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 31

___________________________________________________________
3.3.3._OMISSION OF NORMAL PREVENTIVE MEASURES_____

The another role of the victim in motivating criminal act is non-abidance

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

________________________________________
3.3.4._EMOTIONAL PATHOLOGY_________

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

pg. 31 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 32

_____________________________________________________________________
3.4_ROLE OF VICTIM IN CRIME : MODELS ___________________________

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

This type of model presented by Walter Reckless is found in most of the

cases. This model is related with those criminal acts, which is initiated by
the criminal himself. It is related with those individuals and things who
possess those things.

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

___________________________________________
3.4.2._CRIMINAL – VICTIM MODEL__________

This model presented by Reckless is less frequent as compared to the first

model. In this model the victim initiates the interaction and he gives some
signals to the criminal, which is translated by the criminal. Thus as per this
model according to Reckless the victim creates criminal behaviour in the
criminal and motivates him to commit crime. In this case it should not be
pg. 32 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 33

taken that the criminal starts the criminal act. In this model the criminal do
not acts until he comes into the contact of the victim. Hence in this case it
would be better to consider that the possible criminal is present who is
turned to a criminality due to victim and victim’s wrong behaviour.

_____________________________________________________________________
3.5_STUDIES RELATED TO THE ROLE OF VICTIM IN CRIME___________

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

a. Role of Victim in Sex Related Offences

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

Many sex offence related studies shows that victim motivates the criminal
and unconsciously they cooperate in criminal act and invites criminal
behaviour. In maximum sex related crimes the criminal is a known person
of the victim and the criminal act is not accidental. In a study of 73 sex
offences in 1955, Weiss found that 60% victims were ‘participative’ in the
offence, Glueck in his study of 185 sex offences in 1956 found the victims
‘seductive’ in 21% cases, Radzinowicz in his study of 1994 sex offences
in 1957 found the victim’s ‘non-objecting’ in 40% cases and Gagnon in
his study of 330 female child victims of sex offences in 1965 found the
victims ‘collaborative’ only in 8% cases.
pg. 33 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 34

_____________________________________________________
3.5.2. ROLE OF VICTIM IN MURDER RELATED CRIME__

Like sex related crime in murder-related crime also the role of Victim is
very significant. Porterfield is of the opinion that in the process of murder
the interaction between the murderer and the victim varies from total
incorporation to full cooperation. Dr. Ram Ahuja in his study on 136
females presented in Female Murderers in India- A sociological Study in I
JSW found that the victims were ‘provocative’ in 53% cases. The victim’s
‘provocation’ in victim precipitated murders was found in the form of
infidelity in 12% cases, ill-treatment in 24% cases, use of vile names
during arguments in 18% cases, striking a blow in altercation in 4% cases,
use of some weapon in 4% cases and victim’s attempt to molest ego
(offender) in 7% cases. Wolfgang in his study of 588 murders found
victim’s provocation in 25% cases while Hentig found it in 85% cases.
Victims were found either collaborative or seductive or non-objecting or
participative.
________________________________________________________________________
_3.6 ROLE OF VICTIM IN IDENTIFICATION OF CRIMINAL AND IN
GETTING PUNISHMENT TO THE CRIMINAL

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

pg. 34 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 35

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

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

The criminal justice system is charged with processing cases from the point of
victimization, through investigation, arrest, prosecution and sanctions. At each point
along this continuum, criminal justice agencies and professionals have opportunities and
obligations to provide victims with assistance, services and accommodations to ease their
difficulties in what is already a very trying, tragic time. The criminal justice system can
minimize and avoid inflicting "secondary victimization" (by the CJ system itself) that has
often characterized much of the plight of victims of crime.
pg. 35 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 36

Thus Victims of crime deserve rights and services in the criminal justice system that
begin at the point of reporting crime to the police, and continue through the entire
criminal justice and corrections processes.

pg. 36 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 37

CHAPTER IV
VICTIMIZATION

4.1 REPEAT VICTIMIZATION

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

The National Crime Victimization Survey indicates that the annual number of
victimization is about 37 million incidents. Being the target or a victim of rape, robbery
or assault is a terrible burden and one that can have considerable consequences. Whether
the effects are physical, emotional, financial or all three, the scare are indelible. A violent
criminal victimization is a real life classical conditioning experience in which being
attacked is an unconditioned stimulus that produce unconditioned responses of fear,
anxiety, terror, helplessness, pain and other negative emotions. Any stimuli that are
present during the attack are paired with the attack and become conditioned stimuli
capable of producing conditioned responses of fear, anxiety, terror, helplessness and
other negative emotions. However the property losses are only a small part of the toll
crime takes on victim. In addition productivity losses are caused by injury, medical costs,
pain and emotional trauma. Victims who suffer serious physical injury often require
medical treatment. The suffering endured by crime victims does not end when their
attackers leaves the scene of the crime. They may suffer more victimization by the justice
system. While the crime is fresh in their minds, victims may find that the police
interrogation following the crime handled callously, with innuendoes or insinuations that
they were somehow at fault. Meanwhile the victim may have difficulty learning what is
pg. 37 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 38

going on in the case. Property is often kept for a long time as evidence and may never be
returned.

Victims may also suffer economic hardship due to wages lost while the victims testify in
court. Additionally, time may be wasted when they appear in Court only to have the case
postponed or dismissed. They may find that authorities are influenced to their fear of
retaliation if they cooperate in the offender’s prosecution. They may also fear testifying
in court and being humiliated by defense attorneys. Researches in victimization findings
are stable and repetitive and they indicate that victimization is not random but a function
of personal and ecological factor.

This shows that like crime, victimization has stable patterns and trends. Many
victimization occurs in home and many victims are the targets of relatives and loved
ones. There are a number of theories of victimization. One view called victim
precipitation is that victims provoke criminals. More common are life style theories that
suggests that victims put themselves in danger by engaging in high-risk activities such as
going out late in night, living in high crime area and associating with high-risk peers. The
routine activities theory maintains that a pool of motivated offenders exists and that these
offenders will take advantage of unguarded, suitable targets. Thus Criminologists and
Victimologists now consider victims and victimization a major focus of study.

______________________________________________________________________
4.1_REPEAT VICTIMIZATION__________________________________________

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

pg. 38 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 39

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

a. Target Vulnerability – The victims’ physical weakness or psychological

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

c. Target Antagonism – Some characteristics in crease risk because they

arouse anger, jealousy or destructive impulses in potential offenders.
Being gay or feminate for example may bring on underserved attacks in
the street being argumentative and alcoholic may provoke barroom
assault.

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

________________________________________________________________________
4.2 VICTIMIZATION TYPES_____________________________________________

Wolf gang has outlined five types of victimization

a. Primary victimization involving personalized or individual victims
b. Secondary victimization where the victim is an important target of the offender
(e.g. a thief in a department store, a person traveling without a ticket on a
roadways, bus etc
pg. 39 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 40

c. Tertiary victimization which affects the public or the administration of society

d. Mutual victimization which concerns those victims who themselves are offenders
in a given mutually consensual act (e.g. adultery)
e. No victimization, which is an act of negligible significance where there is no
immediately recognizable victim.

________________________________________________________________________
4.3 VICTIM PRECIPITATIONS AND LIFESTYLE___________________________

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

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

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

pg. 40 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 41

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

This idea of victim precipitation was expanded and more carefully considered by
Wolfgang (1958) when he considered homicide cases.

He concluded that in certain cases the victim, by his actions, actually determined whether
the crime was committed, for example, by being the first to turn to physical violence.

Victim precipitation can be either active or passive.

a. Active Precipitation – Active precipitation occurs when victims act

provocatively , use threat or fighting words or even attack first.

b. Passive Victimization – Passive Victimization occurs when the victim exhibits

some personal characteristics that unknowingly either threatens or encourages the
attacker. The crime can occur because of personal conflict – for example when
two people compete over a job, promotion, love interest or some other scarce and
coveted commodity.

A few examples of victim-precipitated crimes may be cited:

On several occasions, a man threatens to kill his wife since he suspects her on
having illicit relations with his friends. One day, he assaults her with his hands
and feet while she is cooking food in the kitchen. The wife suddenly picks up a
knife from a table nearby and warns the husband against further beating her. In
the vening struggle, the husband falls on the knife and gets killed.
pg. 41 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 42

In another case, the victim is the aggressor in a fight, having struck his opponent
several times. People try to intervene but the victim persists. Finally, the offender
retaliates with blows causing the victim to fall and his head on a stone, as a result
of which he is seriously injured.

A landlord uses vile names against his tenant during an argument. The tenant tries
to pacify him and even threatens to report him to the police. The landlord gives
him an iron-rod and dares him to use it against him. Being repeatedly challenged,
the tenant snatches the rod from his landlord and hits him.

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

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

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

pg. 42 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 43

citizens to avoid victimisation, is one of the dangers inherent in the enhanced position
given to victims under modern responses to the victim movement.

_______________________________________________________________________
4.3 VICTIM LIFESTYLES AND CRIMINALITY____________________________

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

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

The first three of the variables in the above example are demographic Variables, but they
too are related to lifestyle. In most cultures, certain lifestyles are thought normal for given
groups, and are therefore more or less socially encouraged or discouraged within such
groups.

pg. 43 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 44

An important reservation is that the lifestyle victimisation criteria so far discussed hold
only for street crime or for crime committed on personal property. They totally ignore the
private victimisation, referred to above in the areas of domestic violence and of sexual
violence committed within relationships of family ties or of trust.

Victims of these offences may find that they are safer outside the home rather than in it.
They also ignore the fact that certain groups are sought out to be victimized. These are
thus likely to suffer relatively high rates of victimisation, whether they remain in home or
venture out onto the street. Racial minorities are especially prone to such treatment.

One theory which goes some way to answering some of these problems about identifying
victims was postulated by Sparks (1982) He highlighted six factors which he considers
important in this area. They are vulnerability, opportunity, attractiveness, facilitation,
precipitation and impunity.

a. Vulnerability – Vulnerability is used by Spark to cover a number of possibilities. The

first resembles the victim’s types discussed by Von Hentig (1948). These are at special
risk, not because of something they do, but just as a result of their personal attributes such
as being weak (mentally physically or both), old, or young. Other areas of vulnerability
beyond the control of the individual may arise from variations of status, economic
position or environment. Status Vulnerability may arise because that individual belongs
to a weak grouping such as minority races, women or children. Similarly, people living in
a particular area or environment may increase their vulnerability. This may be connected
to economic vulnerability.

b. Opportunity – Opportunity has two levels. First, it refers to availability. It is not

possible to steal something which is securely locked away or which the victim does not
possess. At this level, the concept is trite. Sparks uses it rather to consider the occasions
on which the victim has made victimisation more likely, perhaps by a particular
behaviour pattern. This is lifestyle by another name. More general lifestyle changes, such
as increased leisure, may also have increased the opportunity for criminality (Smith
pg. 44 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 45

(1982)). The danger of giving too much weight to such considerations is that it may lead
to a reduction in the culpability and denunciation of criminals.

c. Attractiveness – Attractiveness refers to how tempting something may be to a

particular criminal. It is a relative idea, where the criminal is supposed to weigh up the
case of attaining the item against the possible gain from its possession. Where risk is low
and the possible gain high, then the object is attractive, especially if it is spatially
accessible. Attractive targets, both from the point of view of ease of access and possible
gains, tend to be heavily concentrated in inner city areas it is thus unsurprising that these
areas experience high crime rates.

d. Facilitation – Facilitation refers to whether a position of special risk has been

deliberately, negligently or unconsciously created by the victim. An example might be
failure to fit locks or alarms in an area with high rates of burglary. It is a dangerous
extension of moving blame away from the criminal and onto the victim.

e. Precipitation – Precipitation was seen by Sparks as particularly relevant to cases of

inter-personal violence and rape, and most of these ideas were discussed above. He
expands on these by seeing them as of most relevance when the offender and victim are
known to one another, often very close. For example, he writes of the wife who kills her
husband in his sleep because he has repeatedly beaten her.

f. Impunity – Impunity is the final category defined by Sparks and related to situations
where the victim is unlikely to complain, or to be believed if they do complain. The crime
can thus be perpetrated without fear of being detected. This is often the case when sexual
offences are committed against, women and children where the victim is both unlikely to
complain and unlikely to be believed. It also applies to cases against criminals, especially
prisoners down and outs, racial minorities, illegal immigrants prostitutes (male and
female), etc.

pg. 45 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 46

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

______________________________________________________________________
4.4 CRIME-RELATED PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAUMA______________________

Most crime victims achieve some significant recovery sometime between one and three
months (1-3 months) after the crime. During this time period, they are shocked, surprised,
and terrified about what has happened to them. They often have feelings of unreality,
thinking, "this can't be happening to me." Many will also report having periods of rapid
heart rate and hyperventilation. Such physiological and emotional reactions are normal
"flight or fight" responses that occur in dangerous situations.

In the days, weeks, and first two or three months after the crime, most violent crime
victims continue to have high levels of fear, anxiety, and generalized distress. This
distress disrupts their ability to concentrate and to perform simple mental activities that
require concentration. They are preoccupied with the crime (e.g., they think about it a
great deal of the time; they talk about it, they have flashbacks and bad dreams about it).
They are often concerned about their safety from attack and about the safety of their
pg. 46 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 47

family members. They are concerned that other people will not believe them or will think
that they were to blame for what happened. Many victims also experience negative
changes in their pre-crime beliefs that the world is a safe place where you can trust other
people, and where people get the things they deserve out of life.
Long-term psychological trauma also takes on various forms. The DSM-IV diagnosis of
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder refers to a characteristic set of symptoms that develop
after exposure to an extreme stressor.

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

1. Persistent re-experiencing of the event (i.e., distressing dreams, distressing

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

The lifetime prevalence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder was significantly higher

among crime victims than victims of other traumatic events (25.8% vs 9.4%). Rates of
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder appear to be higher among victims who report crimes to
pg. 47 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 48

the criminal justice system than among non-reporting victims. There is also evidence that
many crime victims with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder do not spontaneously recover
without treatment, and that some crime victims have Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
years after they were victimized.

Long-term, crime-related psychological trauma is not limited to Post-Traumatic Stress

Disorder. Compared to people without a history of criminal victimization, people with
criminal victimization have been found to have significantly higher rates of major
depression, thoughts of suicide, alcohol and drug problems, panic disorders, agoraphobia,
and obsessive-compulsive disorders.

In addition to these mental disorders and mental health problems, violent crime often
results in profound changes in other aspects of the victims' life. Many victims experience
problems in their relationships with family and friends. Among the relationship problems
they can experience is difficulty in sexual relations with their partner.

Thus Psychological trauma impairs the ability and/or willingness of crime victims to
cooperate with the criminal justice system. Victims must be treated better by the criminal
justice system because it cannot accomplish its mission without the cooperation of
victims. Victims whose crime-related fear makes them reluctant to report crimes to
police or who are too terrified to testify, effectively make it impossible for the criminal
justice system to accomplish its mission. Thus, it is important to understand:

________________________________________________________________________
4.5 CLASSICAL CONDITIONING THEORY__________________________ _____

Classical conditioning theory predicts that any stimuli present at the time of a violent
crime are potential conditioned stimuli that will produce conditioned fear, anxiety and
other negative emotions when the victim encounters them. Thus, characteristics of the
assailant (e.g., age, race, attire, distinctive features), or characteristics of the setting (e.g.,
time of day, where the attack occurred, features of the setting) might become conditioned
pg. 48 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 49

stimuli. Thus, a woman who exhibits a conditioned fear response to the sight of her rapist
might also experience fear to the stimulus of men who resemble the rapist through the
process of stimulus generalization. Eventually, this stimulus generalization process may
result in the rape victim showing conditioned fear to all men.
The most common response to conditioned stimuli is avoidance behavior. Thus, there is a
natural tendency for crime victims to avoid contact with such conditioned stimuli and to
escape from situations, which bring them in contact with such stimuli.

A second classical conditioning mechanism with important implications for

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

Involvement with the criminal justice system requires crime victims to encounter many
cognitive and environmental stimuli that remind them of the crime. These range from:

 Having to look at the defendant in the courtroom.

 Having to think about details of the crime when preparing to testify.
 Confronting a member of "second-order conditioned stimuli" in the form of
police, victim/witness advocates, and prosecutors.

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

pg. 49 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 50

______________________________________________________________________
4.6 POSTVICTIMIZATION FACTORS____________________________________

Two major post victimization factors are thought to play an important role in victim
recovery from crime-related psychological trauma. The first is social support. In general,
most studies find that good relationships and support from family members and friends
assist victims' recovery. Consequently, it is important to determine the extent and
supportiveness of a crime victim's potential social support network. Victims with little
social support are probably more likely to need professional counseling.

The second major post victimization factor is the degree and nature of exposure to the
criminal justice system. Although participation in the criminal justice system is generally
regarded as a negative factor in victims' recovery, there are some data suggesting that
involvement with the criminal justice system need not always have a negative effect. A
positive experience, however, is largely reliant on treatment of victims that is
comprehensive, sensitive and inclusive.

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

________________________________________________________________________
4.7 VICTIM EXPECTATIONS_____________________________________________

Most crime victims think that the criminal justice system should be responsible for
providing them with counseling for crime-related psychological trauma. This is
particularly noteworthy because virtually all crime victims are eligible for crime victim
compensation coverage for their mental health counseling. Clearly, a problem exists
pg. 50 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 51

because most crime victims expect the criminal justice system to provide them with
access to counseling, but most victims -- including those with crime related Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder -- say they don't get the counseling they need.

________________________________________________________________________
4.8 Welfare Of Victim_____________________________________________________

the two main aspects of victimology is to study the role of victim in crime and the other
aspect is related with the welfare of the victim which is prenented below

1. in present context the State owns the responsibility to compensate the

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

______________________________________________________________________
4.9 SUPPORT AND SERVICES FOR VICTIMS____________________________

Victims have to compete with all other disadvantaged or unfortunate groups for the aid
that may require. Therefore groups working for the victims must both State their case and
point out why their particular demands should be met. The plight of victims received
recognition from both the Council Europe (in its 1983 convention and its 1985
guidelines) and t eh United nations (in their 1985 Declaration). Both International bodies
included similar llists of victims neede the need to be trearted with respect and dignity to
be allowed access to the mechanism of justice and to legal processess which will provide
them with redress for the harm done, offenders should make restitution for the harm done
pg. 51 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 52

to victims, their families or dependents and such restitution should be possible as a

sentencing option in the criminal cases, information for victims concerning the progress
of the case allowing the views of the victim to be considered their personal interests are
affected (as long as the accused is not prejudiced) assisting victims through the legal
process , use the informal dispute resolution such as medicine where appropriate , and
material , medical , psychological and social assistance for victims through governmental
and community –based means (these are taken from the UN document). In 1990 in the
United Kingdom the Victims charter was published which largely set out in general terms
the existing arrangement for [Link] includes items under most of the heads covered by
the international documents, but interestring ly it omits any mention of informal dispute
resolution. The charters main limiting factor is that there is no means of enforcement so
that it does not give victims any rights , but it dioes represent an official recognition of
the interestrs of victims and provides victims organizations with a powerful tool to lobby
parliament. Its strength lies in the provision of welfare based su[pport rather than rights in
the criminal justice system. This perpetuates the way in which the needs of victims were
anyway being addressed in Britain , by twi very different approaches first , opfficially
through the criminal justice system and secondly unofficalily through a largely voluntary
network of support schemes , most notably the VSS. In both approaches the victim is
generally provided with opportunities rather than rights.

The victims are now an integral part of criminological studies. Their importance in the
criminal justice system is increasing, but they still lack basic powers and rights or
interests which will be legally protected within that system. It is important that the study
of the victim does not take over from the study of the criminal, and so allow the criminal
to escape culpability and social condemnation. If the needs of Victims are kept in
Perspective, they must also be taken more seriously by those in authority, not least
because without their cooperation the system quite literally could not operate.

Recently the interests of victims have gained a prominence in both media and political
rhetoric. This hift has usually been associated with a call for greater law and order. Some
argue that in media and political discussions and in policy changes, the interests of
pg. 52 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 53

victims have been hijacked to serve the needs of media entertainment and political power
(for some discussion of this see mawby and walklate (1994),(especially pp. 1321) and
Elias (1993)). It is thus necessary to ask how many of the changes which are claimed to
be in the interests of victims actually serve those interests To respond to such a question
some assumption about the needs, interests and desires of victims have to be made. Here
it is assumed that victims wish to be afforded dignity and have assurances that their lives
will not blighted by the victimization in the future. Thsy may also wiah to see the
perpetrator delat with . With this in mind , a number of new initiatives and suggested
changes will be considered . One prominenet recent change is in increased powers of the
police and other criminal justice agencies. The polic began under the Police and crimnal
evidence Act 1984 and culminaterd in the criminal justice and public order Act 1994
which vastly increased the powers of the criminal justice agency and criminalized certain
types of protests and ways of life withoutr providing much in the way of protection for
individuals. It has had detrimental effects on the rights of suspects and defendents may
well lead to miscarriage of justice wrongful convictions which not only breach the rights
of the person convicted but are also clearly contrary to the interest of victime and of
justice . This type of initiative , although usually presented as being in the interests of
victims , in fact rarely improves their lot and may ultimately be damaging to them.

pg. 53 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 54

CHAPTER V
COMPENSATION TO THE VICTIM

The traditional concept of criminal justice administration which connotes, legislation of

penal law, enforcement of the law and detection of the crime, trial of offenders and
execution of sentence passed by a court of law does not comprehend the duty of the State
to alleviate the sufferings of the innocent victims and or their families for the loss of life,
property and reputation and for bodily mental injury in consequence of a crime.1

An insight into the evolution of law regarding compensation to the victims of crime and
abuse of power, thus reveals that in the course of history of civil and criminal
administration of justice system, the payment of compensation to the victims of crime
irrespective of the civil and criminal dichotomy hag come to stay. Over the years several
doctrinal principles have been developed concerning the need and justification for
payment of compensation to the victims of crime be it civil law case like torts or be it a
criminal law case.2

1
Justice B.N. Pataik, ‘ Compensatation to the victims of crime : Indian Law and U.N. Resolutions,’
Criminal Law Journal, Vol.103, Part 1165, 1/97, p.2.
2
S.N. jain, Money compensatation for administrative wrongs through Article 32, Journal of Indian Law
Institute, 118 (19830.
pg. 54 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 55

In the changed scenario, the State playing a predominant role in the socio-scenario justice
programmes for the people’s development, has also made the State often an agency
encroaching upon the constitutional protection extended to the citizens in the matter of
life, liberty and property, In the ultimate analysis not only the wrongful acts of private
individuals but also the wrongful acts of the State are becoming the cause of worry of the
victims. It is in this back drop that the activist judiciary through its reasoned decisions
and the efforts of various criminologists, scholars etc over the years that new vistas have
been opened up in the annals of jurisprudence, concerning compensation to victims of
crime and abuse of power who has been hitherto a neglected lot in the criminal justice
system.

pg. 55 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 56

The idea of relief and compensation to victims is not a new [Link] too, our laws
provided for compensation to the victim of accidents. In some cases, the law combined
punishment of the offender with monetary satisfactions for the injured party as a means
of forestalling enmity through counter-violenceby the victim’s kin. In the 1950s an
English reformer initiated a modem movement to bring the victim back into the criminal
justice equation.

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

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

_______________________________________________________________________
5.1_MEANING__________________________________________________________

The word compensation in literal sense means a thing which compensates or is given to
compensate (for), a counter balancing feature or factor, amends, recompens, money
given to compensate loss or injury, or for requisitioned property. When we talk about
Compensation to the Victim it means somtheing given in recompense i.e. equivalent
rendered. The whole purpose of compensation is to make good tah loss sustain by the
victim or legal representative of the deceased. Generally when we talk about
pg. 56 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 57

compensation in the present context it limits to monetary compensation which is

calculated on the basis of two head i.e. pecuniary loss and non-pecuniary loss.

‘Victim Compensation’ refers to payments made from State funds to victims of

[Link] of victim compensation have argued that since the State is responsible
for protecting its citizens from crime. Advocates of victim compensation have argued that
since the State is responsible for protecting its citizen from crime, the failure to do so
obligates the State to indemnify those who are [Link] State is believed to be
responsible to the victims because imprisonment prevents offenders from paying
[Link] general welfare policy also is cited as justification for governmental
assistance to the unfortunate victims of crime.

_______________________________________________________________________
4.2 THE PRINCIPLE______________________________________________________

The principle of payment of compensation to the victim of crime was evolved on the
ground that it is the duty of the welfare State to protect the fundamental rights of the
citizen not only against the actions of its agencies but is also responsible for hardships on
the victims on the grounds of humanitarianism and obligation of social welfare, duty to
protect its subject, equitable justice etc.

______________________________________________________________________
4.3 THE HISTORY______________________________________________________

The first compensation scheme was set up in 1963 when New Zealand introduced a State
compensation Scheme, supposedly removing the need for the victim to rely upon the
offender being wealthy. Britain followed a year later with a State compensatory scheme
for victims of violent crime. This scheme was non ststutory and was only formalized in
legislation in the criminal justice Act 1988. under it Victims have no right to
compensation and payment is at the discretion of the criminal Injuries Compensation
Board (CICB). Indeed, the system was set up without any consultation of victims and
pg. 57 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 58

there was no real evidence that victims of violence wanted to be compensated by the
State. It originated more from a wish to forestall possible complaints of lenient
punishment at a time when criminal justice was pursuing a rehabilitative ideal, whilst it
was also seen as an extension of the welfare principle of State support of those in need
which was strong at the time. It was never considered as part of a wider idea for victim’s
rights.

One of the most important qualities to qualify for compensation is that the victim be
adjudged ‘innocent’ in other words , the the claim is not fraudulent and that in suffering
the injury the victim was not at [Link] condition generally excluded cases where the
victim may have participated in the violence. Any payment is reduced by an assessment
of the amount for which the victim can be said to be responsible or to have contributed
to the injury. It si important to note that compensation is not means tested , nor is it set to
meet a particular need. It is set by amount of injury the CICB assesses the victim to have
suffered and not by the help which that person may need. The system compensates only
those who suffer due to criminal violence and therefore excluded those who suffer
physical injury following other crimes [Link]., after breaches of the factories legislation or
as a result of driving offences. The criminal is not permitted to gain from any payment
therefore excludes those who suffer physical injury following other crimes e.g. after
breaches of the factories legislation or as a result of driving offences. The crimnal is not
permitted to gain from any payment therefore claims in acases of domestic violence will
be countenanced only if the parties are now livibng apart and look unlikely to co-habit in
the future.

_______________________________________________________________________
4.4 COMPENSATION SCHEMES AROUND THE GLOBE______________________

pg. 58 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 59

Almost all countries have accepted this demand and introduced victim compensation
schemes. New Zealand introduced it in 1963, Great Britain in 1964 and Australia in
1967. In America, 28 States (including New york and California) have introduced these
schemes.
The compensation scheme in England is that A VICTIM IS APID compensation in
accidents casesif he is injured for three weeks loss of pay. The award is sanctioned by the
compensation board when the victim submits an application to it.

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

Victim compensation shemes have also been introduced in countries like Canada,
franmce, Norway, Sweden, Italy, denmark, Belgium, japan, Ntheerlands, Turkey, west g
Germany, Yugoslavia, HongKong and Singapore. However, these countries do not pay
compensation for all types of crime. Compensation is selective. The guidelines generally
followed are

a. Compensation is payable to persons for injury resulting from crime.

b. Crimes against property is not compensable.
c. Victims of inter-familial crimes are not compensable.
d. Victims who initiate or provoke the criminal assaults resulting in victimization are
precluded
e. Offences arising from gang warfare are not compensable
f. Trivial injuries are usually ignored, say a loss of less than two or three week’s
earnings.

pg. 59 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 60

In India, the principle of compensation for victims of crime has been accepted in criminal
procedure Code (CrPC) and 1958 Probation Act. The CrPC provides for compensation
out of fine levied on the [Link] award of compensation has to be a part of sentence
and must be decided by the Couurts. Not only the victim but also his/her spouse, parent
and child are entitled to [Link] in practice, the provision s (for compensation)
have remained merely on paper because it is difficult to recover from the offender.

S. nenugopal raised the question of compensation to victims in a seminar on ‘criminal

Law and Contemporary Social changes’ held at Delhi from 8-10 may 1969 by the
Research division oft eh central Bureau of Investigation. Another seminar on
‘Compensation to victims of Road Accidents’ was organized in 1980 in New Delhi and
various issues like third – party claims, expeditious settlements, etc were discussed.
However, since then no serious thought has been paid to this question either by te
judiciary or the criminologists.

A study in Poona city in 1960-61 by Pradhan (1965)showed that out of 510 cases of
violence in one year (1960-61) prosecution took place only in 182 cases and in 13 casese
the aggrieved party was awarded compensation. In another study of victims of Fatal
Motor Vehicle Accidents conducted by Khan and Krishna in Delhi in 1981, it was found
that only in 22 % cases, some ‘assistance’ was made available to the victims. In third –
party insurance, only 20% ofteh bereaved families were compensated by the insurance
companies.

In England, a white paper presented in the Parliament in 1959 suggested that ‘Soicety has
concentrated so much on the rehabilitation ofthe offender that it has lost sight of the
equally important concern for the victim’s welfare i.e. the reformation policy is offender-
oriented and not victim-oriented. It is necessary that victim’s loss and offender’s ability
to pay should be assessed.’
In America, Ralph Yarborough while introducing a private bill in the senate in 1963 held
that ‘While Soicety is weeping over the criminal, it is showing no such concern for the

pg. 60 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 61

victim of his [Link] is brutal towards the victims of crime and not against the
criminals.’

Katzenbach Commission appointed in America in 1966 found legislators, law

enforcement officers and the public in favour of compensation scheme.

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

He found three systems existed in paying compensation to victims

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

a. Compensation to victims of crime could be brought within the purview of

criminal procedure and dealt with in the same criminal court which deals with the
offence.
b. Compensation may be claimed byt eh victim butif doesn’t , the court should deal
with it as art of its fundamental duties.

pg. 61 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 62

c. If question of compensation leads to delay in the pronouncement of sentence, the

court should apss a part sentence and may postpone its decision in relation to
compensation.
d. Compensation should be fixed with reference to offender’s economic and social
position.
e. Where th eoffender is not in a position to compensate, the State must undetake it
sresponsibilities.
f. The State should set up a compensation Fund with the aid of fine and other
sources of vevenue.

Issues for consideration in the context of India

If we take into consideration the magnitude of crimes in India for which compensation
may be considered feasible , we find that (taking average of six years from 1993 to 1998),
every year about 2,94,360 cases of theft, 1,18101 cases of burglary, 23,190 cases of
robbery, 8,488 cases of dacity, 21,248 cases of kidnapping, 38,024 cases of murder,
33,198 cases of cheating, 14,064 cases of rape and 15, 949 cases of breach of trust take
place in our country. Can our stste afford to pay compensation to about five lakh victims
of only nine offences undr the IPC every year? How much amount would be involved?
Since we donot have wage scheme in prisons, how can offenders be compelled to pay
compensation? This only shows that compensation scheme is not feasible in our
country.A similar provision has already been made in our Criminal procedure Code,
Probation of Offenders Act,1958 and in some other [Link] idea of extensive application
of the scheme of government commendation to victimsthus does not appear to be
economically practicable in our [Link] fact, no Government can afford the cost of
victim compensation which may run into billions of rupees a year and also no
government can lay claim to finding fool-proof mtheods for detecting fraudulent
[Link] is also the fear that such programmes would result in the creation of another
bureaucractic paper mill and that compensation would dampen the victim’s desire to
testify against criminals, increasing crime [Link] course, there are scholars who have
answers to these [Link] maintain that restrictions on eligibility will control
expenditure. Also there is no evidence that compensation affects the crime rate. The
pg. 62 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 63

possibility of fraud is [Link] in accidents cases which permit compensation

according to the existing laws, the rate of compensation are very low which do not cover
even the medical [Link] court procedures are so complicated that people, even if
aware of the existence of the compensation scheme, hesitate to take legal action against
the offenders. It is therefore high time that a debate on the various aspects of victim-
compensation in the country is started to protect victim’s interests.

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

Indian Legal Frame Work

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

a. The compensation has to come out of the amount of Fine . hence the sentence
must be proportionate to the nature of the offence and the sentence including the
sentence of fine must be unduly excessive.
b. In awarding compensation it is necessary for the Court to decide whether the case
is a fit one in which compensation has to be awarded . If it is found that
compensation should be paid, then the capacity of the accused to pay
compensation should be [Link] directing compensation . the objective is to
collect the fine and pay it to the person who has suffered the loss. The purpose
pg. 63 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 64

will not be served if the accused is not able to pay the fine or compensation for,
imposing a default sentence for non-payment of Fine would not achieve the
object.
c. The court should also take into account the nature of the crime, the injurysuffered,
the justness of the claim for compensation, the capacity of the accused to pay and
other relevant circumstances in fixing the amount of fine or compensation.
d. The payment by way of compensation should be reasonable ehich depends upon
the facts and circumstance of the each case. If there are more than one accused
they may be asked to pay in equal terms unless their capacity to pay varies
[Link] payment may also vary depending upon the acts of each
accused.
e. Reasonable period for payment of compensation, if necessary by instalment, may
also be given

can be trace through the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Probation of Offenders
Act and Constitution of India. Under the provisions of code of criminal procedure the
power to award compensation is vested under section 357. the plain reading of the section
shows that sub-section (1) and (3) vests power on the trail court to award compensation
and sub-section (4) gives power even to appellant or revision court to order for
compensation . SubSection (1) empowers the courts to appropriate the whole or any
portion of the fine recovered for the purpose mentioned in the clauses to the subsection,
under which clause (b) is most important and of our use. It demands that claim of
compensation must be accompanied by following conditions:
1. Loss or injury suffered
2. Loss or injury must be caused by the offence
3. Such person can recover the compensation in a civil court sub-scetion (3)
empowers the court, in its discretion, to order the accuse to apy compensation
even though fine does not form part of compensation and hence although inserted
in 1973 added new positive dimension to Indian Philosophy of Compensation.
pg. 64 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 65

Probation of Offender Act vide its section 5 empowers the trial court to order for
[Link] power in case of this Act vests only with the trial Court. Section 431
and 421 of Cr.P.C. reads with above two substantive sections. Section 421 provides for
means to recover the fine by attachment and sale of movable property of the offender and
also from both movable and immovable as arrears of land revenue. Section 431
empowers the court to recover any money (other than fine) payable by virtue of any order
made under as if it were fine if mtheod for its recovery is not expressly provided. As far
as the constitutional scheme is concern it is to be noted that it is out come of various
decision of Supreme Court of India either by reading part third rights (in some cases part
four as well) with Art. 32, 136 and 142 of Constitution of India, wgich is to be given
either by the State or accuse.

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

Section 357 of the criminal Procedure Code, 1973 provides some reliefs to the victims as
the court is empowered to direct payment of compensation to any person for any loss or
injury caused by the offence. But in oractice the said provisiob has not proved to be of
much effectiveness. Many persons who are sentenced to long term imprisonment do not
pay the compensation and instead they choose to continue in jail in default [Link] is
only when fine alone is the sentence that the convicts invariably choose to remit the fine.
But these are cases in which the harm inflicted on the Victim would have been far less
serious. Thus restorative and reparative theories are not translated into real benefits to the
victims.

pg. 65 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 66

Suggestions of Dr. Stephen regarding compensation of victimDr. Stephen gave the

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

4. in present context the State owns the responsibility to

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

pg. 66 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 67

Support and services for Victims

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

pg. 67 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 68

Even in the U.N. Declaration on Basic principles of Justice for victims of crime and
Abuse of Power 1985 hint has been outlined for helping nad sagfeguarding victims rights
and to give justice and compensation to the victim. (resolution 40/45). The text is as
follows.

Access to Justice and Fair Treatment

1. Victims should be treated as compassion and respect for their dignity. They are
entitled to access to the mechanisms of Justice and to prompt redress as provided
for by national legislation for the harm that they have suffered.
2. Judicial and administrative mechanism should be established and strengthened
where necessary to enable victim to obtain redress through formal or informal
procedures that are expeditious, fair inexpensive and accessible. Victims should
be informed of their rights in seeking redress through such mechanisms.
3. The responsiveness of judicial and administrative processes to the needs of
victims should be facilitated by
a. Informing victims of their role and the scope, timming and progress of the
proceedings and of the disposition of their cases, especially where serious
crimes are involved and where they have requested such information.
b. Allowing the views and concerns of victims to be presented and
considered at appropriate stages of the proceedings where their personal
interests are affected, without prejudice to be accused and consistent with
the relevant national criminal justice system.
c. Providing proper assistance to victims throughout the legal process.
d. Taking measures to minimize inconvenience to victims, protect their
privacy, when necessary and ensure their safety as well as that of their
families and witnesses on their behalf from intimidation and retaliation.
e. Avoiding unnecessary delay in the disposition of cases and the execution
of orders granting awards to victims.
4. Informal mechanism for the resolution of disputes including mediation, arbitration
and customary justice or indigenous practices should be utilized where
appropriate to facilitate conciliation and redress for victims.
pg. 68 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 69

Restitution 8. Offenders or third parties responsible for their behaviour should where
appropriate make fair restitution to victims, their families or dependents. Such
restitutions should include the return of property or payment for the harm or loss
suffered, reimbursement of expenses incurred as a result of the victimization, the
provision of services and the restoration of rights.
9. Governments should review their practices, regulations and laws to consider
restitution as an available sentencing option in criminal cases, in addition to other
criminal sanctions.
10. In cases of substantial harm to the environment, restitution if offered should
include as far as possible, restoration of the environment, reconstruction of the
infrastructure, replacement of community facilities and reimbursement of the
expenses of relocation whenever such harm results in the dislocation of a
community.
11. Where public officials or other agents acting in an official or quasi-official
capacity have violated national criminal laws the victims should receive
restitution from the State whose officials or agents were responsible for the harm
inflicted. In cases where the Government under whose authority the victimization
act or omission occurred is no longer in existence, the State or Government
successor in title should provide restitution to the victims.

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

12. The establishment, strengthening and expansion of national funds for

compensation to victim should be encouraged. Where appropriate, either funds
may also be established for this purpose, including in those cases where the States

pg. 69 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 70

of which the victim is a national is not in a position to compensate the victim for
the harm.

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

15. Victims should be informed of the availability of health and social services and other
relevant assistance and be readily afforded access to them.

16. Police, justice, health, social service and other personnel concerned should receive
training to sensitize them to the needed of Victims and guidelines to ensure proper and
prompt aid.

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

19. State should consider incorporating into the national law norms prescribing abuses of
power and providing remedies to victims of such abuses. In particular, such remedies
should include restitution and or compensation and necessary material, medical,
psychological and social assistance and support.
20. State should consider negotiating multilateral international treaties relating to victims
as defined in paragraph 18.
21. State should periodically review existing legislation and practices to ensure their
responsiveness to changing circumstances, should enact and enforce, if necessary,
legislation proscribing acts that constitute serious abuses of political or economic power
as well as promoting policies and mechanisms for the prevention of such acts and should
develop and make readily available appropriate rights and remedies for victims of such
acts.
pg. 70 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 71

Chapter 1V: Judicial Trend in Compensatory Jurisprudence Discernible through the

Interpretation of the general and the Special Law
While the constituional provisions take care of protection of Victim’s rights and payment
of Compensation to the victims of abuse of power by the State, in appropriate cases, in
case of private offences, the victim’s chances of getting compensation are rather limited
and depends much upon the courts attitude from case to case. The criminal procedure
code reflects the general law concerning compensation to the victims of the crime to
some extent. The relevant Provisions of the code are considered below.

Section 357of the code of criminal procedure , 1973 is the main provision dealing the
compensation to crime Victims. Section 545 of the old criminal procedure code dealt
with the same subject matter though it was somewhat narrower in scope. Section 357 (1)
lays down inter alia :
Wheneverunder any law in force for the time being a criminal court imposes a fine or a
sentence of which fine forms a aprt, the court may , when passing judgement, order the
whole or any part ofthe fine recovered to be applied:
a. In defrying expenses properly incurred in the prosecution.
b. In the payment to any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused by the
offence when compensation is in the opinion of the court, recoverable by such
person in a civil court.]
c. When any person is convicted of any offence for having caused the deatrhs of
another person of having abetted the commission of such an offence in paying
compensation to persons who are under the Fatal Accidents Act,1855, entitled to
recover damages from the person sentenced for the loss resulting to them from
such death.
Sub-Section (3) of Section 357 was added, as recommemded by the Law Commission in
its 41st report, in the new criminal Procedure Code of 1973 and it provides:

pg. 71 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 72

Wwhen court imposes a sentence of which fine does not form a aprt, the court may, when
passing judgement , order the accused person to pay, by way of compensation such
amount as may be specified in the order, to the person who has suffered any loss or injury
by reason of the act for which the accused person has been sentenced.

The court has thus, a very limited discretion under Section 357 (1): it can award
compensation only out of the fine, if imposed on the offender. The Courts have, however,
much more deiscretion under sub –section (3) of the Section 357, though onl if the fine
does not form a part of the sentence. Theoreticallty, the power of the court is unlimited,
though practical consideration would prevail. A Magistrate can order for higher
compensation than the amount of fine he can impose.

It is interesting to note that the courts have generally been averse to the imposition of
fine along with a severe or even substantial punishment by way of imprisonment. In
Mohammed Sah and Other V. Emperor the offender was convicted under Sections 32,
148 and 149 of the Indian penal code. He was awarede one year imprisonment ans a fine
of Rs.500, out of which Rs. 400 were awarded to the heirs of the [Link] Lahore High
Court held imprisonment to be substantial and therefore , fine to be unwarranted. The
Court further held that compensation in any case would not have been payable to the
heirs in view of the blame –worthiness on the part of the deceasedf. He was himself the
aggressor and had encroached upon the land of the offenders.
In another instance concerning compensation the Supreme Court has expressed its
disapproval of combining the punishment of fine with the death sentence and evn with
life imprisonment. In the instant case, the High Court had reduced the punishment of
death sentence to life imprisonment awarded by the trial court and imposed a fine of rs.
20,000 on the offender payable to the heirs of the deceased. The Supreme court reduced
the fine and compensation to Rs.3,000.
The judicial attitude is however, reflected somewhat differently in Guruswami V. State of
Tamil Nadu where it was held that in case of murder it is only fair that proper
compensation should be provided for the dependents of the deceased. It was a case
where the appelent had murdered his father and brother as a result of some family feud
pg. 72 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 73

and was sentenced to [Link] appeal, the Supreme Court reduced the punishment tolife
imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000 on the offender to be paid to the heirs of
the deceased.
The Supreme Court has in recent years invoked the concept of victim restitution in
appropriate cases. The court has realized the merit of compensating the victim for the
losses incurredby them. There is an emergent trend in penology to reassure the victim
that he/she is not a forgotten species in the criminal Justice system, a measure of
responding appropriately to crime as well as reconciling the victims with the offender. On
the other hand, the courts felt that the amount affixed should be reasonable depending
upon facts and circumstances of each [Link] is a movement in the Courts to consider
the time facotor, in enhancing the fine imposed . Also this is to be done in such a fashion
so as to bring maximum benefit to the victim, declared the payment underinsurance and
that he/she should also be apid out of the fine as compensation bears no kinship and
cannot be equated to insurance payment.
The 1898 Code of Criminal Procedure was amended by joint select committee on the
premise that the victim or his heirs should be compensated for the loss incurred by the
person responsible for it and it should extend even when death sentence is awarded or the
person is entitled under Fatal Accidents Act to recover damages.

In Palaniappa Gounder V. State of Tamil nadu where a death sentence was combined
with a sentence of fine, the court remarked on this sparing use of power and a need was
felt that the imprisonment of the fine should be [Link] Court felt that in
imposing a fine, it is necessary to consider the pecuniary circumstances of the accused
and also note the existing factors like the nature of the crime and justness of the claim.
Thus in [Link] . stste oF Bombay, the apex courtheld that when a substantial term of
imprisonment is influicted, an excessive fine be imposed only in exceptional cases. N
extreme penalty cases it is better to give damages at the time of awarding judgement as it
setles claims once and for all and does away with any futher claim.

In Sarwan Singh V. satae of Punjab it was said by the court that in awarding
compensation, the ciourt should not just consider what compensation ought to be
pg. 73 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 74

awarded to the heirs of the deceased and then impose a fine which is higher than the
compensation . the court laid down that the amount of fine should be determined on the
basis of various factors including nature of crime , number ofinjuries and the paying
capacity of the offender. In this case the two appellants were fined Rs.3500 each along
with rigrous imprisonment of 5 years in view of sufficient funds being available wuth
each.

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

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

1. much depends upon the paying capacity of the offender and in most cases, this
acts as a bar against victim getting any compensation.

pg. 74 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 75

2. There is a general reluctance on the part ofteh criminal courts regading the use of
criminal law process for compensationpurposes coupled with the indifference and
even ignorance on the part of lawyers and Clients and many opportunities are lost
because of their fault.
3. the court are reluctant to impose fine along with substabtial imprisonment in
serious offences and the scope of fine in any case if very limited in terms of
quantum in minor offences.
4. maximum fines have been laid down for various offences which were fixed long
time ago and their monetary value must now be a very small fraction of what it
might have been at the time when these fines were introduced in the Penal Code.
5. Conviction is necessary for the payment of compensation . As is well known ,
conviction may not be possible in may cases irrespective of the merit of the case.

Various judicial decision studied above clearly indicate that the judicial trends in
compensating the victim is attaining new scales, with the courts with all their powers and
wisdom are doing justice to the victims of crime with their dynamic and active approach
in interpreting the provisions of law.
As rightly observed by the supreme court Section 357(2) is an important provision but
courts have seldom invoked [Link] due to ignorance of the object of it. It empowers
the Courts to award compensation to victims while passing judgement of conviction. this
power was intended to do somtheing to re-assure the victim that he or she is not forgotten
in the criminal justice system. It is a measure of Responding appropriately to crime as
well as reconciling the victim with the offender.

Compensation under the Special Laws

Besidesthe code of criminal Procedure, there are some other enactments which contains
provisions for compensation to the crime [Link] Section 5 of the Probation of
offenders Act authgorises a Cort releasing an offender on probation , to direct him to pay
such compensation as the court thinks reasonable for loss or injury caused to any person
by the commission of the offence and such costs of the proceedings as the court thinks
[Link] system may be quite often the condition for release of an offender
pg. 75 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 76

on probation . Compensation by the prisoners out of their earnings dutring imprisonment

has also been suggested as a good strategy , an appropriate sanction in view of the fact
that prisoners are given wages for the work done in prison .
Similarly , there are ceratin laws which provide for the imposition of pyunitive tax on the
community as a whole in an area where roits occur or members of an unlawful assembly
commit some [Link] Police Act,1951 is such an enactment . this remedy is
perhaps the only effective remedy indicated in large scale violence involving a large
number of offenders and [Link] remedy is particularly useful in the context of the
communal riots in the country since hardly any person is convicted, not even prosecuted,
regarding the participation in communal disturbancesdue to various political and legal
constraints and [Link] legislation is needed for other parts of the country in
view of the recurring nature of the communal riots.

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

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

pg. 76 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 77

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

pg. 77 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 78

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

Today it has become almost a common practise to knock the doors of the courts either
under Article 226 or under Article 32 of the Constitution on the ground of illegal arrests
or [Link] courts , being moved by such illegal arrest, detention torture and other
form of injuries caused to the members of the public by the agencies of State, in
juxtaposition to the constitutional guarantees enshined under Articles 21 and 22 as also
pg. 78 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 79

the procedural formalities envisaged in the code of criminal procedure,1973 left the
courts with no option bu t to invoke their prerogative powers under Artcle 226 or 32 as
the case may be, so as to ensure due and possible justice to te victims of police
atrocitiesor tortures not only by awarding reasonable compensation , but also directing
the State to initiate appropriate action on the erring police [Link] doing so the
Courts did not accept the defence of Soverign immunity to the inhuman acts of the police
and made the State liable vicariously for the acts of its servants.

Thus, the State has a legal duty of not only protecting the rights of the citizens, but also a
social duty to compensate for illegal arrest or [Link] compensation is seen as a
tangible expression of State’s sympathy and concern for those who though no fault of
their own suffer unjustifiable invasion on their personal integrity.
In the nineties however, the apex court has taken or treated on a new dimension in the
compensatory jurisprudence which has opened a new horizon in victimology which may
soon lead to certain normative formulation from the legislative wisdom on ths matter. In
1993, the Supreme Court is not helpless and the wide powers given to it by Article 32
opined that the Supreme Court is not helpless and the wide powers given to it by Article
32 which itself is a fundamental right imposes a constitutional obligation on it to forge
new tools, which may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the
fundamental right guarantedd in the Constitution, which enables the award of monetary
compensation in appropriate cases, where that is the only mode of redress available.
Chapter V
Judicial decisions Concerning Payment of Compensation

Since 1980’s the Supreme Court na dteh High Courts have made a rich contribution to
progressive development of the Law concerning payment of compensation to the victims
of abuse of power by the State. A close study of some of the important decisions of the
Courts is necessary to eswtabl;ish the propositin that the judiciary is not lagging behind in
its challenges role of protecting the citizen right and also providing them appropriate
remedies , in the fast changing , socio-politico and economic scenario of the State which
is playimnmg a dominant role in several spheres of the citizen’s life.
pg. 79 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 80

A. Cases where the compensation was awarded

Recognizing the importance being given to the concept of compensation to victims,
the Supreme Court has granted Compensation / exemplary costs to tehose persons
whose right was violated by the State and its administration , so as to make the right
guaranteed under the Constitution more effective . the Supreme Court while invoking
Article 32 of the Constitution has granted two types of Monetary reliefs namely
‘compensation and exemplary Costs’. Though the idea of Compensation to the
victims is implicit in both the concepts yet exemplary costs as a measure of
punishment to the State and at the same time a measure of damages toothe victim for
the wrong done to him by the State.
In 1983 , the Supreme Court of India declared in a seminal ruling in Rudul Sah
v. State of Bihar that it could award in appropriate cases, monrtaey compensation, wher
there has been a violation of the guarantee of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of
the Indian Constitution by he State. IN this case the petitioner was illegally detained in
the prison for more than 14 years even after his aquittal. A writ of Hebeas Corpus was
filed on behalf of te petitioner and compensation was paid for illegal [Link]
Supreme Court ordered the State to pay the petitioner a further sun of Rs. 30,000/- as an
interim measure in addition to the sum of Rs, 5000 already paid by it. It was further held
that the order of compensation was in the nature of a pallitive and it did not preclude the
petitioner from bringing a suit to recover appropriate damages from the satae and its
erring officials. This pronouncement was based on the reasoning that the article would be
denuded of its significant content if the power of the court was limited to passing orders
for releasr from illegal detention or other orders of a declatory kind. Therefore , an
effective way to ensure that the violation of the right could be reasonably prevented and
due compliance with the constitutional mandate could be assured was to mullet its
violater, the State with the payment of monetary compensation . this rulling was truly
pathbreaking in several [Link], it was the logical sequel of the Human Rights
Litigation in the Supreme Court in which ‘actvist’ judged ushered in new vistas in the
landscape of individual rights and personal liberty by laying down new jurisprudence
which considerably embellished the express human rights guaranteed in the Constitution
pg. 80 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 81

of these express rights. Secomd, it made clear in no uncertain terms that lawmlessness
and violation of human rights on the part of the State would not be [Link],
it improved the capacity and the effectiveness of the Superior Court of the country in
redressing violations of constitutionaqlly guaranteed fundamental and human rights.
Thus, in this historic case the court has accepted compensation as one of the reliefs which
the court may grant under Article 32 for the effective enforcement of the fundamental
rights. The compensation according to the ruling of the Supreme Court is to be awarded
by the Court only in cases where the facts are revolting, outrageous and unusual
indicating clear callousness on the part of te authorities.

Just tweleve days after Rudal Sah the Supreme Court awarded Rs.15,000 as
compensation to an under-trial who was detained in the lunatic asylum for six years after
he had been cerified as fit [Link] yet another case the Government had disregarded
for a long period of twelve years the mandamus issued by the Court to pay pension to a
retired civil servant. Being in a helpless situation the Court noted the intentional and
deliberate harassment of the petitioner on the hands of Officers of the State
administration and awarded him exemplary costs amounting to Rs. 25,000 and the arrears
of the pension with interest at the rate of 6%.

In Sebastian M. Homgray V. Union of India a writ of habeas corpus was issued to the
Governemnt of Inida requiring to produce two missing persons alleged to hav e been
illegally kept in army custody. There was sufficient eveidence that they were last seen in
the custody of army and were not released. The Government failed to produce them
before the Court and also expressed its inability to do so. N fact the two persons had met
an unnatural death. The Court found that There was a willful disobedience of the Writ of
the Court by authorities by Presenting misleading facts. The Court sonsidered the
Torture, the agony and mental oppression undergone by the wives of the person directed
to be produced. The Court , instead of Imposing a fine on the Governement for civil
contempt of the Court awarded exemplary cocts to the tune of rupees one lakh each to
the two wives of tehmissing persons.

pg. 81 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 82

There have been many occasions where the liberty has been used as a license to anarchy
and the governments lawlessness. Bhim Singh [Link] of jammu and Kashmir is such
another example of the Governnment’s, [Link] the Victim was detained by
the sate Administration solely with te intention to prevent him from attending the session
of the House.’the petitioner being a member of the Legislative Assembly was detained by
the Police when he was on his way to attend te session of the Legislative Assembly.
He was notproduced before the Magistrate within the requisite period. On the petition by
his wife under Artcile 32, te Supreme Court depreciated the role of Police and
Commented against the magistrate and Sub-Judge who acted in a very causal way. Th
ecourt not punitive and awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000 for his illegal
[Link] Court observed:
‘When a person comes to us with the complaint that he was arrested and imprisoned with
mischievous or malicious intent and that his constitutional and legal rights are invaded
the mischief or malice and the invasion may not be washed away or wished away by his
being set free. In appropriate cases we have the hurisdiction to compensate the victim by
awarding suitable monetary compensation.

The decision in Rudal sah was further reterated in two other cases all of which togtheer
formed a trilogy in which the Court granted compensation to citizens whose rights had
been violated by the State. The Supreme Court in A.S. Mittal v. satae of u.p. broadened
the scope of Article 32 and granted compensation to the trune of rs. 5000 on humanitarian
[Link] this case an eye camp was conductetd as apart of social services to the
residents of the Town at Khurja in uttar Pardesh. The whole programme at Khurja,
however laudable the intentions with which it might have been launched, proved a
disastrous medical misadventure for the patients. The operated eyes of the patients were
irreversibly damaged, owing toa postoperative infection of the intra-occular cavities of
the operative eyesr…. The matter was brought before the court in the form of a public
interest [Link] article 32. the State Government provided a sum of Rs. 5000 to
each of tehVictims by way of interim relief. The court could not be satisfied on this sum
of money granted by the State to the victim and resolved that:

pg. 82 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 83

‘…. We think that on humanitarian consideration the victims should be afforded some
monetary relief by the sate [Link] direct that in addition to the sum of rs. 5000
already paid by way of interim relief, the State Government shall pay a sum of Rs.12,500
to each of the Victim . the Victims entitled to receive the additional payments shallbe the
same as those who ahd the benefits of the interim relief of Rs.5000.’

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

Following Rudal Sah case the Supreme Court in People’s Union for Democaratic Rights
v. State of Bihar awarded compensation to the victim of police firing while disposing off
a petition under Article 32 of theConstitution. The decision used the term “
Compensation’ to quantify the payments . in the same vien the court in 1989 awarded
Rs. 50,000 as compensation to the family of one swarup who was beaten to death by
police, when he along wit h other poor people demanded wages for the work thay were
forced to do in a police station by Police.
In cases involving abuse of power the important question often come for consideration
for the judiciary is who should bear the burden of paying compensation i.e. whether the
Satte from its exchequer on the principle of vicarious liability or the concerned erring
officials who is responsible for such abusive act, which is definitely outside the purview
of his official [Link] the courts have generally accept the need for fixing the
responsibility on the erring official and hence lilability to apy from his [Link] are
instances also where the courts have directed the State to pay compensation , under the
principle of vicarious liability.
In majority of the cases the Supreme Court had shown a greater degree of judicial
consciousness towards protection of individual rights and liberties by conmtaining
pg. 83 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 84

administrative lawlessness and providing compensative justice to the victims. The Court
seems to realize to a greater degree than before the need to compensate monetarily the
victims of atrocities committed by those invested with soverign power to pretect the
victim instead of victimizing them.

B. Award of Compensation in Rape cases

The judiciary has actively responded in may a cases of rape, where the women
victims in fact , needs a real moral, theical, legal andf economic support to face the
trauma, in the prevailing social [Link] of tehimportant decisions ofteh
court , where compensation was awarded to the victims of rape are as below.
In a dowry murder case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has awarded Rs.50,000
as compensation to the parents of victims. Again considetring the plight of the victim
woman, the apex court in a case for mud-slinging and character assassination of wife ,
convicted the husband under section 498-a of IPC and the husband was fined Rs.1
lakh and rs.36,000 to be paid to victim woman as compensation.
In m.J. Cherian case the Supreme Court, directed the State of uttar paradesh toppay
Rs. 2,50,000 as compensation to each of the victims of rape.
In a recent rape case of Nuns, both the rape victims were awarede rs.2.5 lakh as
compensation and the other affected Nuns who were assaulted and molested were
also paid compensationof one lakh each.

In a recent case where a woman Hanuffa Khattoon , a Bangladeshi national was gang
raped by some persons, including som erailway employees at the rail yatri Niwas at
Howrah Station on Feb.26,1998. Acting on Public interest Litigation petition filed by
a woman lawyer, the Calcutta High Court had awarede rs.10 Lakhs as compensation
to the victim on grounds that the incident had taken place in a building belonging to
the Railways.
The Supreme Court directed the railway Board to hand over the compensation
amount payable to te victim, to the Bangladesh high Court within 3 months.
c. Compensation to Victims of crime and national Human Rights commission

pg. 84 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 85

the national Human Rights Commision , an agency of State and a Statutory body
created under Act of parliament , namely the national Human Rights Act,1993 has
ever since its formation and funxctioning been actively engaged in the work of not
only enquiring into the cases opf violation of human Rights and fundamental
freedoms, but also even awarding compensation to the victims of violation of Human
rights.
Some of the important decisions of the National Human Rihts Commission of far
reaching importance aare discussed below.
In a case from orissa the National Human Rights Commission has directed the satte to
pay Rs.6,25,000 as compensation to 125 tribal families whose children had died of
malnutrition and malaria in Phulbani district in October,1994.
Again , at the instance of national Human Rights Commission , the Andhra pardesh
Governemnt has enabled compensation to the victims of extremist violence. Orders
have been issued providing for payment of Rs. 50,000 to the legal heirs of person
killed by naxalities Rs.20,000 to those permanently incapacitated and Rs.10,000 to
those seriously injured with effect from 1.4.1994.
In yet another case, the National Human Rights Commission has recommended the
Tamil nadu Governemnt to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensdationto the parents
of a 15 years ol;d boy Raja alis Mrurugan who died in police custody, Hosur police
station in 1995 in Dharampuri District.
Similarly in a case, the national human Rights Commission has recommended the
Andhra Pradesh Governmant to a pay a sum of rs.45,000 towards treatment of
Kankati Sailu, who sustained serious injuries at the hands of naxalities in Karimnagar
district in 1994.
In another case, the commission has recommended the Tamil nadu Government to
pay a sum of rs.25,000 to the next of Kin of AnthonySwami who died in police
custody and has given necessary directions for recovering this amount from the
delinquent police officials in1995.
In yet another case , upon the recommendation of the commission , the Bihar
Government paid Rs.1,00,000 as compensation to [Link] of Dhanpur, Bihar

pg. 85 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 86

whose husband was shot dead in the riots following demolition of Babri Masjid and
also a substance allowance of Rs. 1,500 per month to the widow during her lifetime.
In case involving the custodial death of one Mr. Nagaho Sema of Nagaland, while
holding 9 wardens responsible for the act and recommending prosecution , the
commission has recommended the payment of Rs. 50,000 as compensation to te next
of kin of the [Link], the commission asked the State government to
recover this amount from the errant personnel so that the State ex-chequer might not
be forced to bear this unnecessary burden.
In yet another case, upon the recommendation of the commission, the Kerela
Government has sanctioned payment of Compensation of Rs. 10,000 each of the
seven boys who were stripped and forced to append two nights in the company of
girls in the police up at Tirunelvelli in Wayanad [Link] action has also
been initiated by the State Government for recovering ,through departmental
preceedings, the total compensation amount of Rs.70,000 from te delinquent Police
officers, who have been placed under suspension.
In a significant verdict, the national Human Rights Commission has directed the
Uttar Pradesh Government to pay immediate interim relief of Rs. 10 Lakh to a victim
of police torture and bears all expenses for his treatment and [Link]
constitution has also recommended disciplinary action against five officers including
the Asst. Superintendent of Police and te Superintendent of Police of Varanasi,
responsible for the torture of rakesh Kumari Vij, rendering him incapable of leading a
normal life.

In another case, in 1995 the national Human Rights Commission has recommended
the payment of interim Compensation of Rs.5 Lakh to the father of the Victim in a
case of custodial death of a youth in Balia in district of Uttar Pardesh as politically
motivated one and an instance of police high handedness.

tha national Human Rights Commission has directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay
Rs.20,000 each to three women for causing unnecessary ‘harassment’ and the same to
be recovered from the erring officials.
pg. 86 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 87

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

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

Cases where compensation was not awarded

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

It is interesting to observe that there are cases where the courts were somehow found
to be reluctant to award compensation in cases involving abuse of power , though the
justice demands otherwise.A few of such notable instances are discussed below. In
Khetri V. State of Bihar where the Police authorities had blinded certain prisoners and
the counsel for the blinded prisoners asserted a constitutional right to get
compensation for the damages caused by police excesses. For the first time an issue
of constitutional importance was raised before the Supreme Court as to a person
pg. 87 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 88

deprived of his right to life or personal liberty in violation of Article 21 by the

[Link] question raised was whether the Court can grant monetary compensation to
such person. The court imposed a liability upon the State to pay compensation to the
victim for violation of the personal liberty under Article 21. the court agreed that in
the light of dynamic –constitutional jurisprudence such a claim of compensation
could be [Link], it is interesting to note that no compensation was paid to the
victims in this case.
The issue of compensation to the victim of State excesses where the claim for
compensation was rejected was again raised in Sant Bir v. State of Bihar where the
victim was a criminal [Link] had become perfectly sane and fit for discharge but
remained under detention illegally for over 15 years. The court directed the releasr of
prisoner and remarked that it was a matter of shame for the society as well as the
administration to detain a person for fifteen years without any justification. The court
appreciated the need to compensate the victims of lawless law enforcement but left
the question again open. Thus , in both the above cases the apex court expressed its
concern about the grant of any compensation to the victims of State excesses but
failed to actually garnt the same.
Similarly , in Sim Padma Dev and Other sv. Stste of Himachal Pradesh and others the
petitioners was detained illegally and confined unlawfully by the police authorities
while abusing their [Link] High Court was satisfied regarding forgeries made in
tehpolice zimnis (general diary), but took rather a lenient view, on the plea that it was
the first known lapse on the part of the respondent police officials and directed a
departmental ijnquiry by the compentent disciplinary authority and only Rs.500 as
cost of the petition was awarded to both the petitioners jointly in the ratio of Rs. 300
and [Link] no compensation was awarded by the court for illegal detention. It si
rather disappointing that the High Court showed leniency to the offence of forgery
indulged in by the police officials and did not award any compensation to the victim
of the criminal Law.

pg. 88 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 89

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

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

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

The Apex Court convicted the accused persons but did not allow compensation to the
victim only because the women’s commission failed to draw up a scheme for
payment of compensation to pare victims. This is a step in retrograde which has
blocked the advancement of compensatory justice.

Agin the attitude of the Supreme Court towards the large number of poeople in jail
witout for petty offences has been that of indifference to the aspects of
[Link] is illustrated in the case of matthew Areparnitial and Others v.
State of bihar and others. The Supreme Court confined itself to laying down the
conditions for release of such persons and did not give any direction for
compensation to the victims of the criminal process. The Supreme Court did not
bother to issue any direction for disciplinary proceedings against the police and
prosection for not getting the offenders dully tried by a Court of [Link] could

pg. 89 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 90

easily prescribe a time limit for the trial of such [Link] Supreme Court contended
itself in issuing directions for immediate release of the persons.

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

pg. 90 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 91

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

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

3
Drapkin . Israel and vaino, Emilio (eds) Victimology, Lexington , Mass: 1974). Carrington , Frank G. The
Victims (1975): pasternack, Stsfans, (eds) Violence and Victims (1975); vaino, Emilio [Link]. Victims and
Society, (1976); Fry, Margery, “ Justice for victims’, journal of Public Law, Vol 8 (1958), pp.191-94.
Newton , Anne, Aid to the Victim- Compenmsation and Restitution”, Crime and delinquency literature ,
Vol 8 (Sept. 1976), pp. 368 –90. Quinney Richard, “Who is the Victim,?” Criminology , Vol 10 (1972)
pp.314-23
pg. 91 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 92

Prisioners asserted a constitutional right to get compensation for the damage caused by
the police excesses. For the first time an important issue of constitutrional importance
was involved before the Supreme Court as to if a person is deprived of his right to life ot
personal liberty in violation of Article 21 by the State , can the court grant monetary
compensation to such person? The court imposed a liability upon the State to pay
compensation to the victim for his personal liberty under Article 21. The court agreed
that in the light of dymnamic constitutional jurisprudence such a claim of compensation
could be made.
The issue of compensation to the victim of State was again raised in Sant Bir V. State of
Bihar where the victim was a criminallunatic. He had become perfectly sabe abd fit fir
discharge but remained under detention illegally for 15 years. The court directed the
release of the prisoner and remarked that it was a matter of shame for the society as well
as the administration to detain a person for over fiftenn years without any justification.
The court appreciated the need to compensate the victim of the lawless law enforcement
but left the question again open . thus in both the cases the apex court expresses its
concern about the grant of any compensation to the victim of satae excesses but failed to
actually grant the same.
The majo r break through in the field of victimology Jurisprudence came in Rudal Shah
V. State Of Bihar, When the Supreme Court of India granted monetary
Compensation amounting to Rs. 35,000/- to an ordinary citizen against the
lawless act of Bihar government which kept him under illegal detention for more
than 14 years after his aqquital/ This is the first judicial concern to ‘ repair the
damages’ done by the officers of the State to the victimized [Link] concern
has been considered as a major breakthrough in the protection of human rights
and the promotion of responsible Government. The apex Xourt for the first time
deviated from the traditional approach applying the law mechanically based on
precedents and brought the law closer to life by reinforcing the legitimacy and
credibility of the Court particularly amongst the Weaker sections of the people.
The writ petition revealed a sordid and disturbing stste of affairs. The Petitioners
proceeded to the Court under Article 32 of the Constitution and claimed ancilliary
reliefs like rehabilitation, reimbursement of expenses which he might incur for
pg. 92 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 93

medical treatment and compnsation for illegal incarceration. The issue came
before the court as to whether it could give some compensation or exemplary cost
against the State under Article 32 for his wrongful [Link] court expressed its
feeling that it has no doubt that if the petitionar had filed a suit to recover that it
has no doubt that if the petitionar had filed a suit to recover damages for his
illegal detention, a decree for damages would be passed in that suit. Under these
circumsatances, the court felt that the refusal to pass an order of compnsation in
favour of the petitioner will be doing mere lipservice to his fundamental right to
liberty which the State Government has so grossly violated.
Thus the Court accepted Compensation as one of the reliefs which the Court may grant
under Article 32 for the effective enforcement of the fundamental rights. The
Compensation is to be awarded by the Court only in cases where the facts are
revolting , outrageous and unusual indicating clear callousness on the part of the
authorities.
Just twelve days after Rudal Shah, the Supreme Court awartded Rs. 15,000/- as
compensation to an undertrial who was detained in the lunatic asylum for six
years after he had been certified as fit for discharge. In another case the
Governemnt had disregarded for along period of twelve years the mandamus
issued by the court to pay pension to a retired civil servant. Being in a helpless
situationm the court noted the intentional and deliberate harassment of the
petitioner on the hands of the officers of the satae administration and awarded him
exemplary costs amounting to Rs. 25,000 /- and the arrears of the person with
interest at the rate of 6%.
In Sebastian M. Hongry V. Union of India a writ of habeas corpus was issued to the
Governemnt of India requiring to produce two missing persons alleged to have
been illegally kept in armycustody. There was sufficient evidence that they were
last seen in the custody of army and were not released. The government failed to
produce them before the court and also ecxpressed its inability to do [Link] fact the
two persons had met an unnatural death. The court found that there was a willful
disobedience of the writ of the court by authorities by presentinmg misleading
[Link] court consider the torture, the agony and mental oppression under gone
pg. 93 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 94

by the wives of the persons directed to be produced. The court, instead of

imposing a fine on the government for civil contemt of the court awarded an
exemplary costs to the tune of rupees one lakh each to the two wives of the
missing persons.
There have been many occasions where the liberty has been used as a licence to anarchy
and the government lawlessness. Bhim Singh v. Stste of Jammu and Kashmir is
such another example of the Governemnt highhandedness. Here the victim was
detained by the State Admionistration solely with the intention to preventhim
from attending the session of the [Link] petitioner being a member of the
Legislature Assembly was detained by the police when he was on his way to
attend the session of the legislative Assembly.
He was not produced before the magistrate within the requisite period. On the petition
filed by his wife under Article 32, the supreme Court deprecated the role of police
and commented against the magistrate and subjudges wjo acted in a very casual
way. The court deviated from the rule that the writ of habeas corpus is a
remedial and not punitive and awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/-
for his illegal detention.

The supreme Court in A.S. Mittal V. State of U.P. broadened the scope of Article 32 and
granted compensation on humanitarian [Link] this case an Eys camp
was conducted as a part of social service intended to extend facilities of expert
ophthalmic surgical services to the residensts of th town at Khurja in Uttar
Pradesh. However, the whole programme at Khurja, laudable the intentions with
which it night have been launched, proved a disastrous medical misadventure for
the patients were irreversibly damaged, owing to a post –operatuve infection of
the Inttra Occular cavities of the operated [Link] antibiotic medication , both
oral and local for infection , the operated eyes had been damaged completely .
Similar mishap but on lesdser scale affecting 15 patients repeated itself at
moradabad where also a similar camp was organized by the same opthologist. It is
undisputedthat this terrible mishap was due to acommon containment
[Link] of the enquiry revealed that in all possibility , t he source of the
pg. 94 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 95

infection referred to as Ecoli infection of the intra –occular cavity, was the normal
saline used on the eyes at the time of surgery. The matter was brought before the
court in the form of a Public Interest Litigation under Article 32. The State
Governemnt provided a sum of Rs. 5000/- to each of the victims by way of
interim relief. The court could not br satisfied on this sum of money granted by
the State to the victim and resolved that

However we think that on humanitarian consideration , the victims should be afforded

some monetary relief by the State Governemnt. We direct that in addition to the
sum of Rs. 5000/- already paid by way of interim relief, the State Government
shall pay a further sum of Rs. 12,500 to each of the victims. The victims entitled
to receive the additional payment shall be tah same as those who had the benefit
of the interim relief of Rs. 5000.
The Court further directed the State of U.P. to pay the cost which has been quantified at
Rs.5000 to the petitioner. N another Writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution in Saheli, a women’s Resource Centre through Ms. Nalini Bahnot V.
Commissioner Of Police, Delhi, the supreme Court awarded compensation
amounting to Rs. 75,00/- the mother of the victim for the death of a nine year old
because of beating and assault by police officer. This is a case relating to the
highhandedness of the Police authorities, who along with the owner of a house,
adopted unlawful mtheods for getting the eviction of the home from the tenets.
Ms. Kamlesh Kumari, the tenant requested to be given some time to vacate the
house, as her children were studying in the schools. The S.H.O. of the area called
kamlesh Kumari to the Police Station and threatened to lock her up if she refused
to vacate the room. Despite her various requests the sub-inspector of Police took
her children away to the Police station and threatened not to allow her to meet
them. With great difficulty she got the children released with the help of her
Lawyer. On the next day the owner of the house along with S.H.O. in civilian
clothes beat up Kamlesh Kumari, tore her clothe and molested her. Her nine years
old son was also beaten and thrown on the floor. Kamlesh Kumari was dragged
away to the police Station and a criminal case was imposed upon her of trespass.
pg. 95 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 96

She was sent to Tihar Jail and her lawyer got released. Kamlesh Kumari on her
release came back and found that her son Naresh was in a very bad condition. The
children took shelter at a neighbour’s house and they got local doctors to look
after Naresh who was later admitted to the hospital on the advise of the
[Link] died in hospital and an inquest was carried out.

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

The interpretation of Article 32 of the Constitution is to give compensation to the victim

in case of lawlessness/ highhandedness/excess has given a new dimension to
jurisprudence of victimology in India. For a long time this proposition of giving
compensation to the victims was never invoked by the Supreme Court. In the light
of the cases discussed above, it has been found that Court did not generalize the
[provision of granting compensation . It has granted compensation/Exemplary
costs only in cases of extreme necessity, where the infringement is gross and
patent, in controvertible and glaring. No general yard stick to measure such
hardships has been laid down.
In Murti devi V. State of Delhi an undertrial prisoner in jail due to the injury sustained
by him by the jail authorities a petition was filed. In that circumstance the
Supreme Court held : ‘ Because of the gross negligence on the part of the jail
authorities, R, an unbdertrial prisoner was subjected to serious injuries inside the
jail which ultimately caused his death. It has been ststed by the petitioner, M, the
mother opf the said deceased that R. was the only bread earner in the family an
on that day she had become a helpless widow with three sons to be maintained.
As it was the burden duty of the jail authorities to protect the life of an under trial
prisoner lodged in the jail and as in the instant case such authorities has failed to
pg. 96 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 97

ensure safety and security to the said unfortunate accussed, the State is directed to
pay a sum of rs. 2,50,000 to the petitioner within a period of six weeks. Out of
the said anmount rupees two lakhs should be kept in fixed deposit in the name of
M in a nationalized Banks for aperiod of five years so that she can maintain
herself and members of the family , out of the interest accruing on the said fixed
deposit. The balance sum of Rs. 50,000/- should be handed over to M within the
period of Six weeks against prper receipts. After the said period of five years the
petitioners M or her legal heirs and successors as the case may be will be free to
utililse the said sum of rupees two lakhs according of their desires.
Recentaly in chairman , railway Board V. Chandrima Das the Supreme Court held that
where gang rape was commited by railway employees in the building of railways
namely Yatri Niwas on a woman from BanglaDesh, the Central Govt. Would be
Vicariously liable to [pay the compensation to the victim. It was not act
committed by railway employees in discharge of functions delegated to them as
referable to soverign powers of Governemnt Rinnubg of railways is a commercial
activity. Establishing Yatri Niwas at various railway stations to provide lodging
and boarding facilities to passengers on payment of charges is aprt of the
commercial activity of the Union of India and this activity cannot be equated with
the exercise of Soverign Power. The employees of the Union of India who are
deputed to run the Railwaya and to amaneg the establishment, including the
railway Station and Yatri Niwas are essential componenets of the Govt.
Machinery which carries on the commercial activity,. If any of such employees
commits an act of tort, the union Government of which thay are the employers
can subject to other legal requirements being satisfied be held vicariously liable
in damages to the person wronged by those employes . it was so when instant case
was case under public law domain and not ina suit instituted under private Law
domain against who utilizing thjeir official position , got a room in the yatri
Niwas booked in their own name where the act complained of was committed. I
It was further held that the theory of Soverign power which was propounded in Kasturilal
case hasd uyielded to new theories and is no longer available in a welfare State. It
may be pointed out that functions of the Governemnt ina welfare are mainifold,
pg. 97 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 98

all of which cannot be said to be the activities relating to exercise of Soverign

Powers. The functions of the State not only relate to the defence of the country or
the administration of the justice, but they extend to may other spheres as for
example education, commercial, social, ecomonic, political and even material.
These activities cannot be said to be related to soverign power.

pg. 98 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 99

CHAPTER IX
PROBLEMS
1. The scope and subject matter of victimology also extends in other
discipline like sociology, psychology, economics, Law etc. Elucidate with
an example to justify the integrated approach.
2. The classification of criminal as given by criminologist and victimologists
is having limitations. Try to give a complete classification of victims
taking into account all the possible criterion
3. List in priority order a few victims' rights, which you feel has unfairly
advantaged the victim in the criminal justice system at the expense of
constitutional and civil rights of the defendant.
4. The idea of innocent victim is rejected by many Criminologist and
Victimologists. Give your opinion with the help of different models and
theories to accept or to reject this premise.
5. There is close relationship between the victim and the offender. Highlight
the same.
6. Victimization takes many forms and every form has a different
repercussion. Whether the effect are physical, emotional, financial or all
three, the scare are indelible. Explain with the help of cases.
7. Prove that the social, personal and experimental factors may also interact
to enhance chronic Victimization.

pg. 99 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005
 100

pg. 100 Anuradha Parasar, Victims, Victimization and Victimology, Pages 1-100, NLUJ, Jodhpur,
2005