1. INTRODUCTION:
Since the inception of human society, crime has been a common occurrence (though not necessarily socially accepted). Emile Durkheim puts it as “integral part of all healthy societies.”1 Therefore crime is said to be a fundamental condition of social organization.2
There are, generally, two parties in a crime, the offender and the victim. Offender is the person perpetrating the crime, whereas victim is the person who has suffered loss because of the unlawful occurrence. In the ancient systems, justice systems had compensatory or vindicatory provisions, among others, to succor the victims. Sir Henry Maine in his book Ancient Law has opined that the “penal law of ancient communities was not the law of crimes; but was the law of wrongs”3. The injured person would proceed against the alleged offender by way of an ordinary civil action and recover compensation in money, in case he succeeded.
But ever since the advent of modern criminal justice systems, victim of crime has lost his position as a part of justice system. Conversely, at an earlier point in development of victimology, victim was considered as a precipitator of crime4. The idea was criticized by Marvin Wolfgang who opposed the theory of victim precipitation and promoted victim facilitation; he furthered the idea that interactions of victim make them vulnerable to crimes and hence though the victim is a party in criminal act he is not blameworthy for it5.
Even though the offender might be brought to justice by the criminal justice system but the victims of crime remained marginalized and did not get any social or rehabilitative assistance. So, even after punishment has been served to the offender it renders no material relief to the victim other than fulfillment of his vengeance.
It has now been realized that in order to bring about justice in its true and holistic sense, certain rights shall be guaranteed to victims with a view to bag them a fair opportunity to ventilate their concerns at the trial, and to assist the victim in regaining his social status and mental peace post-trial.
The United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power6 (hereinafter “UN Declaration”) is called as magna carta of victim rights. The UN Declaration has recognized four essential rights for victims of crime- (a) access to justice and fair treatment, (b) restitution, (c) compensation, and (d) assistance; further the declaration seeks to provide measures with which these rights could be secured.
The paper focuses on the rights of victims of crime in the Indian Criminal Justice System and measures it on the touchstone of standard set by the UN Declaration.
2. MATERIAL AND METHODS:
Nature of Research: Doctrinal.
Type of Research: Descriptive and Analytical.
Sources: Primary sources- Case laws, reports etc.
Secondary sources- books, articles etc.
WHO IS VICTIM OF CRIME?
Victim of Crime refers to any person, group or entity who has suffered injury, harm or loss in his body, mind, property or reputation due to illegal activity of someone else7.
Though the definition of Victim in the UN Declaration includes Victims of crime and Victims of abuse of power, the paper focuses only on the victim of crime (hereinafter, ‘victim’).
Victim has been defined as:
persons who, individually or collectively, have suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omissions that are in violation of criminal laws operative within Member States.8
The term has been defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as9:
Victim means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression “victim" includes his or her guardian or legal heir.
From the above definitions, several elements of definition of ‘Victim’ could be enlisted as:
i. Person or persons: so any person, natural or juristic, may be victim;
ii. Must have suffered some loss, injury or harm: the loss or injury has occurred against the person’s body, mind, property or reputation10;
iii. For which the accused has been charged: this phrase has a special significance, as it implies that the accused is an identifiable person and but the accused need not be ‘convicted’ or the charge need not establish against him. Therefore, accused can be a person having no criminal liability, for ex. an infant.
iv. Lastly, the dependents, close relatives and heirs of the victim can also be the victims of crime. The same is being dealt in the next sub-head.
3. HIERARCHY OF VICTIMS:
Victims can be of three kinds depending on the level and mode of their victimization. The same can be described as:
Primary Victim: is the person or persons who personally have suffered injury or loss. For example, in a case of murder deceased is the primary victim.
Secondary Victim: may be the person who is a close relative or dependent of the primary victim. Secondary victims suffer injury or harm because of suffering of the primary victim. For example, the children of raped woman suffer from lack of paternity, or the dependents of the deceased in case of murder, or simply the insurer in case of theft of insured thing.
Tertiary Victim: is the person besides primary victim who has suffered because of the criminal act of the offender.
The hierarchy of Victims has been recognized by the UN Declaration in the following words:
“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”11
The level of victimization does not have any bearing to the suffering of the victims. Secondary or tertiary victims may also face physical, mental and economic harm similar to or severe than the primary victim. Therefore it would be illogical to define the hierarchy as most suffering, less suffering and lesser suffering. Even a secondary victim might suffer more than a primary victim in certain cases. For example, a person has been murdered his wife and children who are left behind him will definitely suffer more than the deceased.
It is the solemn duty of the state to make sure that the victims are guaranteed certain rights, with particular regard to their needs from the justice system so as to ensure that the misbalance created by the offender comes to a zero.
4. RIGHTS OF VICTIMS OF CRIME:
“The rights of accused far outweigh with that of victims, needs some balancing so that criminal proceedings are fair to both”12
“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India” as is the mandate of article 14 of Constitution of India. But when it comes to Victim justice in the Indian Criminal Justice system, the mandate seems to fall apart. It is widely accepted position in India that the accused have far more rights in conduct of the trial than the victim.
The fundamental rights as to ex-post facto laws13, double jeopardy14, self-incrimination15, protection against arrest and detention16 etc. are the accused-oriented rights and protects them from being tormented by the hands of justice system. But there seems to be only a few articles that seem to be party neutral providing equal opportunity to both victim and offender17. The blame of this blatant misbalance may conveniently be shifted to the retributive justice system prevailing in India which has focused so much on being fair in punishing criminals that it forgot to succor of sufferer.
4.1 Access To Justice And Fair Treatment
The criminal justice mechanism is set to motion when the victim-informant gives information to police, in form of FIR which shall be reduced in writing18 and a copy is provided to informant free of cost19, on failing to which the informant may approach to the Superintendent of Police20. As the last resort, the informant-victim may move to magistrate via a complaint21. In case of compoundable (read, comparatively serious) offences the role of the victim-informant ends as soon as the information is put-in the justice mechanism, thereby preventing the victim from withdrawing the case as well22. Though, compoundable offences cannot be compounded without the consent of complainant.23
Legal aid to the parties of the criminal proceedings has been held to be an inalienable right24, and has been secured for the victims under the Legal Services Authorities act, 1987 subject to fulfillment of test of ‘prime facie case’25. The provisions of Criminal Procedure Code mandating that the pleader engaged by the victim cannot conduct the proceedings by himself26 implies the idea that only state machinery shall bring the crime to justice and any other person not so authorized by the state may only play a secondary role.
Also, a victim can challenge the bail application27 and appeal against the acquittal of an accused28 which give victim to move against the accused if he gets some undeserved relief by the hands of justice system.
Several special legislations have been enacted to cater special needs of certain vulnerable sections of victims, for example, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The POCSO act makes stringent provisions for punishment of sexual offender against ‘children’29 and promotes fair treatment for the victims. Compulsory reporting, protection of victim in investigation, in-camera proceedings, guidelines for physical, mental and psychological assistance to victim in all stages of proceedings, are some of the examples by which the act is paving way for alleviation of victimization of children from sexual offences.
The plight of rape victims and victims of false rape cases by the hands of justice system and administrative mechanism is an elephant in the room, adding to it the legislations and precedents have since ever been inadequate. There are plethora of examples (on and off records) which point towards the inefficacy and inadequacy of the system30. Custody or detention of rape victims at NGOs and Nari Niketan on the pretext of their evidence is a practice by courts but has no legal backing31. Although the legislature has brought in certain provisions to safeguard the victim from procedural injustice, for example, trial or inquiry of rape cases shall be concluded within 2 months of filing of charge-sheet32, in camera proceedings in rape trials33, consensual medical examination of victim by a registered medical practitioner free of cost within 24 hours of the complaint34, victim compensation schemes35, statement of victim shall be recorded at her residence36, rape cases to be tried by women judges37 etc. The mechanism seems to fail as delayed trials, no mental assistance and inadequate protection to the victims are witnessed frequently.
The apex court has acted as the protector of victims of rape and gave multiple guidelines in past decade to shield the victims from procedural injustice. In Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum Vs Union of India38 the court laid down guidelines in relation to legal assistance for rape victims, which inter alia includes:
· Legal assistance to the victim at the police station and court by a person having knowledge of criminal justice system;
· It shall be the duty of police to inform the victim of her right to get legal representation;
· Police stations shall maintain list of lawyers interested in taking up such cases;
· Anonymity in rape trials has to be maintained as far as practicable.
The apex court has also given certain guidelines for defense lawyers in rape cases in State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh & Ors39:
· The courts should not be swayed by minor discrepancies in prosecutrixs’ evidence;
· The cross-examination of victim is to be conducted with utmost decency and not with a tint to malign or tarnish her image;
In State of Karnataka v. Shivanna40 the apex court gave guidelines for investigating officers in rape cases, as:
· Investigating officer shall make immediate steps to take victim to a woman magistrate (as far as practicable) in order to get their statement recorded under s. 164 CrPC.
· I.O. to record the reason of delay in recording of statement u/s 164, if any, in writing.
· Medical examination of rape victim is mandatory and a copy of such examination shall be submitted to the magistrate taking statement.
In an unprecedented move, the Chhattisgarh State Legislature in year 2013 amended the Criminal Law by inserting two provisions that incriminate persons who were present and could prevent the offence of rape or outraging of modesty from happening, and forbid to do so with intent to screen the offender shall be equally liable as the offender himself.41 Very recently, the Calcutta High Court took an applaudable stand in deciding42 that a sexual worker shall be seen as a victim rather than an offender and thereby has imparted a justified view to the Indian Criminal Jurisprudence to look upon the victims of sexual trafficking.
Justice Deepak Gupta in the Mallikarjun Kodagalli judgment has opined that “victims must be treated with sensitivity, compassion and respect. They also must be permitted to access justice because it is sometimes found that the investigating and prosecuting agencies do not follow up cases with the zeal which is required”43.
4.2 Restitution:
Black’s Law Dictionary defines Restitution as “Compensation for loss; esp., full or partial compensation paid by a criminal to a victim, not awarded in a civil trial for tort, but ordered as part of a criminal sentence or as a condition of probation.”44 Restitution is an ambiguous term and can be used to signify restitution of property or wrongful gain as well as compensation by the offender to the victim45. Though the UN Declaration has proffered for restitution as a right independent from compensation, it has been limited to restitution by the offender46.
The Right of Restitution includes the reinstatement of or compensation towards property or person of the victim which has been injured. In the case of R. Gandhi v. Union of India47 the Madras High Court granted compensation to victims of country-wide riots after the assassination of the then Prime Minister.
The power to award compensation in form of restitution was intended to do something to reassure the victim that they aren’t forgotten by the Criminal Justice system48. In the Criminal Procedure Code provisions regarding restitution of victim by the offender have been made, for example, against false prosecution for defamation49, compensation for accusation without reasonable cause50, order to pay compensation to victim51, compensation to persons groundlessly arrested52. The power of court to award compensation is not ancillary to other sentences rather the power is in addition thereto. As per the Apex Court, the power to award compensation to the victim shall be used liberally53, and should before awarding compensation look into the nature of injury of the victim54 and the accused’s capacity to pay55.
Besides the above provisions relating to restitution to victims under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 5 of the Probation of Off enders Act, 1958 has also empowered the courts to require released offenders to pay the restitution and costs as under56:
1. The court directing the release of an
offender under Section 3 or Section 4 may, if it thinks fit, make at the same time a further order directing him to pay:
a. Such restitution as the court thinks reasonable for loss or injury caused to any person by the commission of the offence; and
b. Such cost of the proceeding as the court thinks reasonable.
Also, Motor accident act, 1988 is based on the principle wherein there is enumeration of liability to pay compensation on death or disablement in road accident57 (compensation for death 50000, and compensation for disablement 25000) and provision for third party liability. Recently in June 2019, the Karnataka HC in case of Oriental Insurance v. Lingraj58 held that age of victim is essential in determining compensation in case of motor accidents.
Regarding the restitution in cases of offences under environmental laws, the National Green Tribunal in its report of February 2018 have implied serious violations of environmental laws and non-enforcement of polluter pays principle59. According to the report, the polluter pay mechanism is not functioning properly because of:
(i) Scarce payment to Environment Relief Fund;
(ii) Non-implementation of Fine imposition scheme by states;
(iii) Fines instituted by administration are not properly implemented;
(iv) Penalties are short term measures and lack long term effectiveness;
(v) No system to monitor payments made into the environment relief fund.
4.3 Compensation:
As per the UN Declaration, when the offender is not in a position to compensate the victim it shall be the state’s prerogative to provide compensation60. As per the preamble to the Constitution of India, it shall be the duty of state to secure economic justice, social justice and dignified life for all its citizens. Also under the Part IV of Constitution of India it has been enumerated that the state shall secure a social order for the promotion of welfare61 and to secure equal justice and free legal aid for everyone62.
With this view, the Criminal Procedure Code was amended in 2009, incorporated the Victim Compensation Scheme as s. 357C of the code. As per the provision, the state government shall “prepare a scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation to victims or his dependents”. Wherein, the District Legal Service Authority would have the power to determine quantum of compensation on case to case basis63. The apex court in many a cases including the landmark judgments of Delhi working women forum64, Bodhisattva Gautam65, and Chandrima Das66 cases have furthered compensation to the victims of the offence of rape. The court has also elevated the condition of victims of custodial crimes by making provision for compensation to the in cases like Rudul Shah67. In 2017, the apex court in Ms Z vs State of Bihar68 has introduced pregnancy of rape survivor as a new parameter to determine quantum of compensation for victim.
But in May 2018 in the proceedings of Nipun Saxena case, NALSA disclosed the compensation statistics to rape victims before the Supreme Court. According to NALSA just 5-10% of rape victims get compensation under the Nirbhaya and other schemes69. This position poses severe allegations against implementation of compensation schemes and defeats the purpose for which compensation schemes were put in place. Also, in the same matter, it came before the court that the quantum of compensation granted is too low (in Madhya Pradesh, quantum of compensation for rape victims was around 6000-6500 rupees to each victim). Post which NALSA made “Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/other Crimes – 2018” in which exhaustive guidelines have been laid down to establish Women Victim Compensation Fund under which quantum of compensation shall be decided by DLSA & SLSA70, within the range of 1lakh-10lakh depending on various factors including (but not limited to) gravity of offence, graveness of injury, and age of victim.
4.4 Assistance:
Under the last head of rights of victims, assistance means the ‘material, medical, psychological and social assistance through governmental, voluntary, community-based and indigenous means71. In India, vide the Criminal Law (amendment) act, 2013 a provision for medical assistance was brought in for the victims of rape72.
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:
The criminal justice system has advanced leaps and bounds in past few decades yet there are certain more measures that are needed gto be taken in order to make the system victim friendly. Here are certain suggestions:
5.1 Victim oriented legislations:
In the past few years, position of victims in Indian scenario has been elevated by the statutes and precedents as discussed above. But still a long way is to be treaded in order to make the justice system adequately and justifiably balanced. Legislations need to address concerns of victims and restoration of their position in society.
5.2 Sensitization of Justice delivery and administration mechanism:
The victim is exposed to secondary victimization at the hands of criminal justice system if the authorities are not sensitive towards the cause. Two finger tests for rape victims, blatant victim blaming by the defense lawyers, unnecessary delay in justice delivery etc. are some examples of how the plight of the victim is intensified by the system. To bring about the true spirit of a welfare state the system shall ensure that the victims are treated with utmost decency and sensitivity.
5.3 Implementation of The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution:
The NCRWC made several recommendations to make criminal justice system victim-oriented. It advocated for inclusion of certain victim rights as fundamental rights under the part III of the constitution, such rights includes but are not limited to rights in investigation and prosecution process, victims’ choice in trial of accused, and scheme for compensation of victims of violent crimes and violation of right to life73.
5.4 Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority:
Presently, victims of rape in India are getting compensation under the Nirbhaya scheme which is being revised time to time. But the implementation of the same has failed miserably74, and that is why a statutory board having adequate implementation authority is a much needed concern in order to ensure proper victim compensation. The CICA, on the lines of UK, would have power to implement the governments’ compensation schemes at the grass-root level. The authority would be responsible to provide compensation to victims of all violent crimes not limited to rape. Thus, it would ensure that the victims are reinstated properly and the system is more transparent than the present system.
5.5 Rehabilitation schemes for victims:
Monetary compensation is inadequate measure to bring about holistic victim justice, proper assistance is also required in cases where the act of crime has affected mental or physical condition of the victim. Presently, there seems to be no proper scheme in India to assist victims of crime, though The Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill, 2018 is the ray of hope as it proposes certain provisions to ensure rescue, relief and rehabilitation of victims of trafficking.
6. CONCLUDING REMARKS:
In the past few decades, Indian Criminal Justice System has progressed oodles, yet the road to victim justice seems unpaved at various spots. The system has incorporated provisions ensuring several entitlements and safeguards to victims by legislations and precedents. In a justice system, safeguards guaranteed to opposing parties should hit a near perfect balance which is missing from the scale of goddess Themis. From this research it seems that the courts and legislators are fighting hard against the evils. Yet the picture of victim amiable justice system seems blurry and would need certain filters like independent compensation providing mechanism, sensitization of implementation machinery, and well-defined rehabilitation schemes, among other reliefs.
7. REFERENCES:
1. John Hamlin, The Normality of Crime: Durkheim and Erikson, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, (May 29, 2020, 10:10 AM), https://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/4111/ Durkheim%20-%20Division%20of%20Labor_files/The%20 Normality % 20 of%20Crime.pdf
2. N V Paranjpe, Criminology & Penology with Victimology, 3 (3rd ed., 2014).
3. Sir Henry Sumner Maine, Ancient Law, Its connection with the early history of society and its relation to modern ideas 358 (New York: Henry Holt and Co. 1906).
4. V. V. Devasia, Victimology and the Role of Victim in Crime, Cochin University Law Review, 223-225 (1980).
5. supra note 2.
6. U.N. General Assembly, Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, Res. 40/34, U.N. Document A/C.3/40/L.21, 4, (14/03/2011) available at https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.29_declaration%20victims%20crime%20and%20abuse%20of%20power.pdf, last seen on 08/06/2020.
7. Supra note 2, at 727.
8. Article 1, UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, 1985
9. § 2(wa), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, No. 2, Acts of Parliament.
10. see § 43, Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45, Acts of Parliament.
11. supra note 9 at art. 1.
12. Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752.
13. Art 20(1), the Constitution of India.
14. Ibid, at 20(2)
15. Ibid, at 20(3)
16. Ibid, at 22, CoI
17. Ibid, at 39A.
18. § 154, Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45, Acts of Parliament.
19. ibid.
20. ibid.
21. ibid at § 190.
22. see ibid at § 320.
23. ibid.
24. M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 1548; Wherein the Supreme court held that the right to legal aid was considered as an inalienable element of fair procedure. “…This right to free legal aid is the duty of the government and is an implicit aspect of Article 21 in ensuring fairness and reasonableness; this cannot be termed as government charity”, said Justice Krishna Iyer.
25. § 12 §§ 1, Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45, Acts of Parliament.
26. id. at 301(1).
27. ibid at 439(2). see also, Puran v. Rambilas, (2001) 6 SCC 338.
28. § 373, Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45, Acts of Parliament.
29. The act has been made gender neutral by the apex court in the judgment of Alakh Alok Shrivastava v. Union of India [2018 SCC OnLine SC 212], which means that an act which has been declared as an offence under the act would now protect children of all genders.
30. Aquittal proportion is high; no stringent laws against false cases; inefficiency of justice system in checking media trials etc.
31.
S. Muralidhar, 
Rights of Victims in the Indian Criminal Justice
System, International Environmental Law Research Centre (Jan. 26, 2020,
10:15AM), http://ilerc.org/content/a0402.pdf.
32. § 309, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, No. 2, Acts of Parliament.
33. ibid at 327.
34. ibid at 164A r/w 357C.
35. ibid see § 357A & § 357B.
36. ibid at 157.
37. ibid at 26.
38. Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum Vs Union of India, 1995 SCC (1) 14.
39. State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, 1996 AIR 1393.
40. State of Karnataka v. Shivanna,(2014) 8 SCC 913.
41. § 4 & § 5, The Criminai, Law (Chhattisgarh Amendment) Act, 2OI3, Acts of Legislative Assembly of Chhattisgarh.
42. Manoj Shaw vs. State of West Bengal, CRM 5927 of 2019, decided on 05.08.2019.
43. Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752.
44. Black’s Law Dictionary 1428 (9th ed.).
45. See, John D. Calamari & Joseph M. Perillo, The Law of Contracts § 9·23, at 376 (3d ed. 1987)
46. supra note 9, at art. 8.
47. R. Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1989 Mad 205.
48. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure, pg 1519
49. § 237, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, No. 2, Acts of Parliament.
50. § 250, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, No. 2, Acts of Parliament.
51. § 357, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, No. 2, Acts of Parliament.
52. see § 358, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, No. 2, Acts of Parliament.
53. Jacob George vs State of Kerala, 1994 SCC (Cri) 774; Balraj vs State of UP, AIR 1995 SC 1935.
54. Sukhdev Singh vs Lal Chand, 1986 (1) Crimes 495 (P&H).
55. Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 2013 SCC 2454.
56. see Murugesan Srinivasan & Jane Eyre Mathew, Victims and the Criminal Justice System in India: Need for a Paradigm Shift in the Justice System (Jan. 27, 2020, 11:15AM), DOI: 10.2298/TEM0702051S.
57. see § 140, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, No. 59, Acts of Parliament.
58. Oriental Insurance v. Lingraj, MFA NO. 2228/2017 (Kar. HC, 29/05/2019).
59. Green Tribunal, Green Approach The Need For Better Implementation Of The Polluter Pays Principle, (Jan. 27, 2020, 11:25AM) http://admin.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/green-tribunal-green-approach-report.pdf.
60. See UND art. 12 & art 13.
61. Art 38, the Constitution of India.
62. Art. 39A, the Constitution of India.
63. § 357C (2), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, No. 2, Acts of Parliament.
64. Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum vs Union Of India, JT 1994 (7) 183.
65. Shri Bodhisattwa Gautam vs Miss Subhra Chakraborty, 1996 AIR 922 (1995).
66. The Chairman, Railway Board vs Mrs. Chandrima Das, 2000 2 SCC 465.
67. Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141
68. Ms Z vs State of Bihar, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 943.
69. Only 5-10 % Sexual Assault Victims Paid Compensation: NALSA Tells SC, Live Law (May. 29, 2020, 11:20AM), https://www.livelaw.in/only-5-10-sexual-assault-victims-paid-compensation-nalsa-tells-sc/.
70. See point no. 6 of the scheme, also as per the guidelines of apex court in Laxmi vs Union of India the deciding authority shall be the Victim Injury Compensation Board comprising of District & Sessions Judge, DM, SP, and CMO.
71. supra note 9 at art. 14.
72. § 357C, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, No. 2, Acts of Parliament.
73. see Kumaravelu Chockalingam, Measures for Crime Victims in The Indian Criminal Justice System, The 144th International Senior Seminar Visiting Experts’ Papers (May 28, 2020, 12:35PM) http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/RS_No81/No81_11VE_Chockalingam.pdf.
74. Around 17 % of the fund as granted under CVCF has been utilized 19 July, 2019. See Nirbhaya Fund, Press Information Bureau, Government of India, Ministry of Women and Child Development, (Jan. 28, 2020, 12:45PM) https://pib.gov.in/ Pressreleaseshare.aspx? PRID=1579539.
Received on 24.04.2020 Modified on 29.05.2020
Accepted on 21.06.2020 ©AandV Publications All right reserved
Res. J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2020; 11(2):157-163.
DOI: 10.5958/2321-5828.2020.00028.5