Siddhant Tokas
Jindal Global Law School
Introduction:
Shifting the focus from criminals to victims of the crime ensures that policymakers do not fail to consider the victims of the crime. The practice of focusing on the needs of those who are most deeply affected (victims) rather than the story of the perpetrator is called Victimology. “It is a branch of criminology that scientifically studies the relationship between an injured party and an offender by examining the causes and the nature of the consequent suffering.”[i] The Delhi High Court adopted a similar approach in its recent judgment in the case of Karan v. State NCT of Delhi[ii]. The court observed that the very objective for the enactment of Section 357(3) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, CrPC) was to ensure that the criminal justice system recognises the suffering of victims and to this effect the court stated that, “Victims are unfortunately the forgotten people in the criminal justice delivery system. The criminal justice system is meant for doing justice to all – the accused, the society and the victim. Justice remains incomplete without adequate compensation to the victim. Justice can be complete only when the victim is also compensated.”[iii] To ensure the recognition of the victims, the court mandated the filing of a ‘Victim Impact Report’ that will be used to determine the appropriate compensation to the victim of the crime. This compensation will be paid by the convict for the harm caused including emotional trauma, physical injuries and even for funeral expenses if needed. The progressive steps taken by the Delhi High Court will be the first instance in the country where the convict will be liable to provide monetary restitution to the victim.[iv]
Analysis of the Judgment:
Through the order passed by a full bench comprising Justices JR Midha, Rajnish Bhatnagar and Brijesh Sethi in a bunch of appeals concerning a conviction under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Delhi High Court made a significant development in the system governing the restitution of victims in criminal justice system. The court has directed filing of an affidavit by the perpetrators, post-conviction, disclosing their income, assets as well as their liabilities and expenditures to facilitate the trial courts to make an accurate approximation of the restitutive amount to be paid to the victim or their family in case of victim’s death, for which it was stated that, “The Court has to take into consideration the effect of the offence on the victim’s family even though human life cannot be restored but then monetary compensation will at least provide some solace”.[v] Section 257(3) authorizes the courts to award compensation to the individuals who have suffered the consequences of the acts of the accused. As per the section, “When a Court imposes a sentence, of which fine does not form a part, the Court may, when passing judgment, 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 so sentenced.”[vi] The court ruled that Section 357(3) of CrPC is mandatory as the word “may” actually means “shall”. The Court relied on the judgment delivered in Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh,[vii] where the Supreme Court had detested the failure of Indian courts in compensating the victims of the offence. The court also relied on Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra[viii]directing courts to consider Section 357 of CrPC in every criminal case and that a court must present valid reasons in case it fails to make an order of compensation.[ix]In this backdrop, the court further directed that a just and reasonable compensation will be one that considers all the expenses incurred by the victim including any money spent on therapy, medical treatment, legal expenses, lost wages, damages to property, cost for a funeral, etc. This was the result of the report filed by the amicus curiae, G.S Bajpai.
According to the High Court’s directions, the convict has to deposit the decided amount to the Delhi State Legal Service Authority (DSLSA)which will then give it to the victims and in case the accused does not have the financial capacity to pay the decided amount, the victim will be compensated as per rule given under Section 357A of CrPC[x] i.e. the DSLSA will award compensation from the ‘Victim Compensation Fund’[xi]as under the compensation scheme of 2018.[xii] The bench concluded the judgment by again laying emphasis on the fact that victimology and the criminal justice system are inseparable and observed that, “The object of the Section 357(3) of CrPC is to provide compensation to the victims who have suffered loss or injury by reason of the act of the accused. Mere punishment of the offender cannot give much solace to the family of the victim – civil action for damages is a long drawn and a cumbersome judicial process. Monetary compensation for redressal by the Court finding the infringement of the indefeasible right to life of the citizen is, therefore, useful and at time perhaps the only effective remedy to apply balm to the wounds of the family members of the deceased victim, who may have been the bread earner of the family”[xiii]
Conclusion:
The Court has taken a very progressive stance by directing a liberal exercise of power under Section 357 of CrPC when deciding the ultimate restitutive amount to be awarded to the victim.[xiv] The victim impact reports are a well-known concept in European countries however, Indian criminal justice system has been more accused centric and victims are often marginalised. Both, the courts and media pay more attention to offender’s side of the story, sometimes even giving them a pseudo-celebrity status. The practice of the method adopted by the Delhi High Court will help to bring the victims of the offence to the mainstream.[xv]
REFERENCES:
[i] Andrew Karmen, ‘Victimology’ (Britannica, 14 December 2006) <https://www.britannica.com/topic/victimology/additional-info#history> accessed 14 December 2020.
[ii] Karan v. State NCT of Delhi, [2020] DLT 352.
[iii] (n 1).
[iv] Vijaita Singh, ‘In Delhi, Convicts to pay for trauma of victims, cost of crime’ (The Hindu, 5 December 2020) <https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/convicts-to-pay-for-victims-trauma-cost-of-crime-in-delhi/article33258936.ece> accessed 14 December 2020.
[v] (n 1).
[vi] The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, s 257(3).
[vii] [1988] 4 SCC 551.
[viii] [2013] 6 SCC 770.
[ix] ‘Delhi High Court (FB) Mandates Filing Of Convict’s Income Affidavit & Victim Impact Report To Determine Compensation U/S. 357 CrPC’ (Live Law,7 December 2020) <https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/full-bench-delhi-high-court-victim-compensation-section-357-crpc-convicts-income-166904?infinitescroll=1> accessed December 14 2020.
[x] (n 6) s 357A.
[xi] (n 1).
[xii] Delhi Victims Compensation Scheme, 2018.
[xiii] (n 1).
[xiv] Aditi Singh, ‘Victims are forgotten people in justice delivery system: Delhi High Court directs filing of income affidavit of convict, Victim Impact Report’ (Bar and Bench, 06 December 2020) <https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/victims-justice-delivery-system-delhi-high-court-income-affidavit-convict-victim-impact-report> accessed 14 December 2020.
[xv] (n 1), Amicus Curiae G.S. Bajpai.
