CHAPTER7

RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS

Empirical work has been completed in two Parts. Part one was survey questionnaire, prepared
after extensive review of literature, 21 conceptual questions addressing salient feature of
Restorative Justice has been formulated. This is an on-line questionnaire using [Link],
after formulating questionnaire it was circulated among 200 legal professionals via e-mail,
and whats -app, all the respondents belongs to legal background including legal Practitioner
and legal researchers. All the questions are followed by

The Part two had focus on capturing the perceptions of Non-Legal professionals, and Legal
Professionals , the Non Legal Professionals included medical professionals, engineering,
humanities, who represents highly enlightened section of society, so their perception,
opinions matters phenomenally, in any society and country.

Methodology of generating empirical data follows extensive review of literature, for the
purpose of getting the salient features, of Restorative Justice. With discussion and
consultation, only five types of criminal cases were selected. The details of the cases are at
Annexure1.

This questionnaire gives legal situation to the respondents, and test applicability of salient
features of Restorative Justice

alternative of existing procedure of each type of criminal case is also recorded. The reason for
restricting only to five type of case is the time that each case demands from the respondents,
who is supposed to read each case and existing procedure of justice delivery. Which, is
followed, by gain and loss of victim and offender, families of both and community at large?

Part I of survey and Part II of survey have significant co-relation. Part I purely tests
acceptability of the cardinal principles, and salient features of Restorative Justice. However
Part II is problem based testing of acceptability of principle of Restorative Justice.

211
 While analysing the results of both the surveys, it can be significantly observed that most of
the cardinal principles of Restorative Justice, are accepted by most of the people. However,
when situation is specifically given and thereby principles are asked, a different trend can be
seen.

7.1.1

PART I

This chart, gives the responses to the cardinal principles of Restorative Justice. It comprised
21 questions, all of which address the important principles of Restorative Justice.

Response to question one shows around 80.1% of legal professionals are aware of the
concept of Restorative Justice which is a significantly good response on awareness.87.7% of
the legal professionals agree that Indian criminal justice procedure is cumbersome , lengthy,
and time taking which is significantly good response . 52.1% agree that there shall be

is resistance among the legal professionals to bring victim offender mediation in practice
point no 10, shows around 70.0 % are aware about the concept of victim offender
Mediation(VOM) this is significantly good response about awareness of the concept. 88.4%
of legal professionals have agreed that trend of false FIR is common in courts and this also
leads to delay in criminal cases such huge percent of response depicts very important aspect
of failure of criminal justice system, whereby in indicates that at the very first step of the
legal journey of a criminal case, there is fallacy which allows wrong and false FIR to be
instituted. 80.1% of professionals are aware of the concept of alternative punishments, which
is significantly high response. 80.1% believe there is need of, introduction of alternative
punishments. 39.0% of the professionals are of view that concept of plea bargaining has not
been seriously implemented, which indicates dissatisfaction of implementation of the concept
of plea bargaining.58.2% believe that plea bargaining has not been truly implemented in our
country. 91.1% of professionals believe there is overcrowding of under trials in the prison
which certainly depicts huge recourse of government is being spent on under trials of
criminal justice system. . 63% of professionals are aware of the term of family group
conferencing (FGC), which depicts the concept is not commonly known. Only 48.6% of
people are aware of the concept of remorse letters, the number clearly indicates the concept is
not at all well known even among practicing legal professionals so there is lack of

212
implementation of the same. 84.2 % of the professionals are of the view, that there is dire
need of expansion of compensatory jurisprudence in criminal law which indicates
compensatory jurisprudence is well known concept however implementation is not very well
done. 74.7 % of people are aware of the concept of community justice which is indicative that
the concept is not unknown. 64.4% of the professionals are aware of community justice as a
terminology. 67.7% are of view that there is need for expansion of pre-litigation
mediation.84.9% is of view there is need for expansion of rehabilitative punishments in
Indian criminal law. 54.1 % of professionals are of view retributive punishment is also
restorative. 80 % people are of the view that the criminal justice procedure shall change from
fact finding enquiry to truth finding enquiry which is a big indicator that, professionals find
the process of enquiry faulty.58.2% are of view that supremacy shall be given to victim in
criminal law . 78. 8% of professionals are of view that India, is in dire need of introduction of
inquisitorial system.

Analysis, of whole table of part I in indicator that there is huge dissatisfaction, of criminal
legal procedure, and great acceptance of salient feature of Restorative Justice, and their
practices.

PART II:

A very new type of research techniques is used in this methodology, where respondents are
made to read case illustration, which is followed by existing criminal justice procedure and
alternative to the procedure devised by applying alternative to criminal justice is also

time of case illustration and, procedural techniques the cases are limited to five in number.

7.1.2

CASE 1: Case of culpable homicide, by a juvenile is illustrated. On analysing alternatives

42.86% legal professional agree, that by counselling juvenile offenders can be corrected,
however the response of non-legal professional is much higher that previous categories ie
51.4% . Altogether it can be said that half of the people are open for counselling in criminal
case, which shows sharp resistance towards this alternative. 38.57% legal professionals are of
the view that effective communication can be designed between victim and offender.54.28%

213
of non legal professionals are of view victim offender communication can be effective to
bring justice in case, this shows legal professional are more resistant to establish
communication between victim and offender. As to the concept offender can take

around 50% of non legal professional are of this view, which shows concept of victims
compensation by offender by way of taking responsibility of victim and victims family, are
resilient. 34.28% of legal professionals agree that prison circles during trial can be facilitated,
42.4% of non legal professionals are of the view that prison circle during trial can be
facilitated; this shows lack of knowledge and lack of acceptance of practice of circle of
Restorative Justice. 32.85% of legal professional are of view that alternative punishment can
alleviate, sufferings of victim and offender, 50% of non-legal professional are of the view
that alternative punishment can alleviate sufferings of victim and offender. Which again
shows great resistance of alternative punishment when it comes to apply on particular
situation.31.42% of legal professionals are of view that correction of criminal and their
rehabilitation into society is main aim of criminal law, however 45.7 % of non legal
background are of the same view, which is again indicative of sharp distinction on
acceptability on principle that on principle applied on particular situation. 40% of legal
professional are of the view that procedure of fact finding enquiry shall change to truth
finding enquiry. 48.5% of the non legal professional is of the same view; this shows part
division of the view between the both. 42.8% of legal professionals believe that, offender
family in consensus with victim can be encouraged to repay victim and his family, in some
form which is more beneficial to them. Victims are usually aware of imprisonment of their
wrongdoer, on asking victim shall be made aware of punishment, other than that of
incarnation. 37.14 % of legal professionals are of this view, 50% of non-legal professionals
have divergent view. The whole analysis of data acquired of case 1, shows one significant
trend when put into comparison with that of chart 1 that there is all the acceptances of salient
features of Restorative Justice. However when it comes to application on illustrated situation
the response is different. This is also comparative to the fact that in our country, criminal
justice system is also enshrined with various cardinal principles, like that of speedy justice,
principle of natural justice, let hundreds of criminals be free, and not one innocent be
punished, bail is rule jail is exception, However when it comes to apply this principle, on
cases we have experienced gross miscarriage of these principles, leading to failure of criminal
justice administration. Same trend can be seen in the data discussed above, whereby people of

214
legal profession and highly enlightened other profession, have given relatively less
ACCEPTABILITY TO THE APPLICATION OF THE SALIENT FEATURE ON
SITUATION.

CASE 2. This illustration deals with theft done by employee, from work place.

41.42% of legal professionals are of view, that counselling can facilitate justice delivery
process.50% of non-legal professional are of the same view, it shows that there is equally
divided opinion on counselling as a method. 35.71% legal professional are of view that there
shall be facilitation of victim offender mediation, 32.8% of non legal professional are of same
view. 32.8% of legal professionals are of view reformative punishment should be introduced,
44.2% of non legal professionals are of the view that reformative punishments shall be
introduced this shows lack of acceptability of reformative punishment when the question is
case based, however if we see the response, of part I where salient features of Restorative
Justice are put to survey, we find high acceptability of the concept. 35.7% of legal
professionals are of view that rehabilitative punishments shall be introduced ,51.4% of non
legal professionals are of the view that rehabilitative punishments shall be introduced, which
is clear indicator that on application , more tilt is towards punishment rather that
rehabilitation.34.28% legal professionals are of view that, rehabilitative punishment aims at
reintegrating person into society,55.7% of non legal professionals are of the same view, this
is shows half of the people believe, in reintegration of offender in society. Compensatory
practices shall be encouraged is believed by 36.71% of legal professionals, however only
25.7% of legal professionals believe that compensatory practices shall be encouraged, both
the response are significantly low in number. The trend which can be observed is that which
compensatory jurisprudence as salient feature large percent of respondents are agreeing,
however when it comes on applying it in specific situation the acceptability becomes
significantly low. 35.71% of legal professionals are of the view that justice system shall aim
at saving family of victim and offenders from humiliation, 50% of non legal professional
subscribe to the same view, the percent of agreement is very low as compared to the response
of part I, whereby huge percent of respondents subscribes to the above view. 40% of legal
professionals are of the view maximum justice and minimum pain, 52.8 % of non legal
professionals are of same view. This shows there is less acceptability of the concept, which is
cardinal principle of criminal justice system as well as Restorative Justice system, however
the trend differs in part I. 37.14% of legal professionals are of the view that community

215
service as punitive action, community participation shall encouraged. 52.85% of non-legal
professionals are of the same view, which is again indicator of same trend that while asking
in general principle, respondents have acceptability, however when it comes to applying on
situation greater amount of resistance can be seen. This case also reaffirms the observation
made in above case, that on principle there agreements is greater in number, on application of
salient features resistance can be seen.

CASE 3: This illustration is one which shows acceptance of child marriage, and on attaining
majority going away to town and thereby committing bigamy. Detail in Annexure

This is a very interesting situation whereby on asking that whether imprisonment can help
repair harm of victim and offender, 12.85% of legal professionals are of affirmative view to
the same, 12.85 % of Non-legal professionals are also of same view, however 74.29% of the
respondents do not agree to this view that incarnation can bring any repair to the harm caused
to victim or wrongdoer, which is huge response.31.42% of legal professional are of view that
Participation of credible member in the society shall be encouraged in decision making
process , 52.85 legal professionals are of same view .which is indicator higher number of
enlightened , non-legal professional are of same view, which indicates around 50%
acceptance of community participation, there is indeed sharp diversion from the acceptance
of principle as such. 42.85 legal professionals are of the view offender shall be encouraged to
take responsibility of victim. 51.42 % non-legal persons are of same view. This is an
indicator, that there is lack of awareness and willingness among both the categories to treat
acceptance and community service.5.71% of legal professionals are of the view that rejection
of offender can repair harm caused, 2.8% of non-legal professionals are of same view
however we can see remarkable response of do not agree 91.43% which shows that in such
cases social implication are huge, and rejection of wrongdoer or incarnation of wrongdoer is
not going to solve the problem , which is very well reflected in the result also. Only 12.8% of
legal professionals are of the view that existing justice system really delivers justice, 8.5% of
non-legal professional are of same view, however 78.8% don not agree that existing criminal
justice system is able to deliver justice. 34.28% legal professionals are of the view that civil
society shall facilitate dialogue and encourage justice, 50% of non-legal professionals are of
the same view, this indicates relative resistance among both the groups to accept
participation of civil society.42.85% of legal professionals are of the view that justice shall
aim at welfare of victim and offenders, 54.28% of non-legal professionals are of the same

216
view, which in indicator of significant deviance from acceptance of general rule.

CASE 4: Case is of honour killing where, maternal cousins of same gotra marries, and
thereby becomes victim of honour killings.

38.57% of legal professionals are of the view that by counselling, wrongdoer can be made
realise that for safeguarding social image what wrong he has done, 48.57 of non legal
professionals are of the same view, which indicates more tilt of non-legal professionals
towards communication as means of problem solving in criminals cases. 41.4% of legal
professionals are of the view that counselling can help women, children and society to realise
these practices are evil practices, 48.58% of non-legal professionals comply to the same view
which indicates there is similar response on this issue from both the groups with some more
tilt in group2. .32.85% of legal professionals are of the view that legal and social education
about gotra marriage that in other parts of the cultures it is well accepted norms can bring
correction in such problems, 40% of non legal professionals are of the same view. 37.14% of
legal professionals are of the view that change in mind-set of one can encourage change in
mind-set of all, 44.28% of non-legal professionals are of the same view. 40% of legal
professionals are of the view that training of civil society and religious group can be done to
facilitate justice system, which indicates that when it comes to specific case there is
resistance, among the respondents of both the group to include community organization.
32.85% of legal professionals are of the view that whenever possible imprisonment and its
goal shall be restructured 48.85% of legal professionals are of the same view, which indicates
same trend that when asked for inclusion of alternative punishment as principle there is huge
agreement, however when it comes to applying on specific situation the opinion is different.
25.7% of legal professionals are of the view that offender herself is victim as she killed her
own son to safeguard social image.

CASE 5: This is an illustration when, failed relation of a male employer and female
employee, results into false FIR of rape case.

41.14% of legal professionals are of the view that, many times there are false cases of rape,
48.57 non legal professional are of the same view, which is quite alarming , and indicating
that half of the rape cases are not genuine.38.5% of legal professionals agree that some
mechanism of filtering FIR can be designed, 50% of non-legal professionals are of the same
view. However when compared to general principles, we come to conclusion that more than

217
80% of them agree that many false FIR are lodged. This again indicates the same trend that
there is agreement on general principle, but when it comes to apply specifically the response
is not very exciting. 40% of legal professionals are of the view that person registering false
cases shall face heavy consequences. 52.85% of non legal professional are of the same view.
34.2% of legal professionals are of the view that alternative punishments , having social
implications shall be adopted in criminal law, however 44.28% of non legal professional are
of the same view, when compared to table in part I the response is significantly low, as this
principle of need of alternative punishment is highly supported by respondents in part I.

Analysis of all the cases shows one common trend as repeatedly stated in analysis, that when
it comes to agreeing on salient features of Restorative Justice, there is great consensus among
the professionals, however when it comes to applying the principle on situations, the
agreement is not very exciting. This is the problem which we can face while applying the
principles on practical situation. We find that similar kind of trend is present in criminal
justice system also, as we can see Apex court repeatedly, heal ding, affirming and reaffirming
the cardinal principles of criminal justice. However when it comes to apply on the case, we
can find large gap, leading to gross miscarriage of criminal justice.

218