CONCEPT OF VICTIMOLOGY IN INDIA

Victimology is science of study of the relationship between victims and violat

ors of law or offenders. Government has recently reinforced this political com
mitment in the form of funds for the National Association of Victim Support
Schemes (NAVSS). In 1964, when the
United Kingdom became one of the 1st countries to establish a policy commit
ment to victims of crime in the form of criminal injuries compensation Board.

The reports of 1st and

2nd British Crime Surveys have begun to shed some light on the nature of t
he relationship between victims and offenders. In particular, attention has
been paid to the attitude that victims have towards the treatment of offende
rs.

A Law Inadequate in favour of victims

The victim is the forgotten man of our criminal justice system. He sets the crimi
nal law in
to motion but then goes into oblivion. The present code of criminal procedure
does not recognize the right of victim to take part in the prosecution of the
case instituted on the basis of police report.
The victim is merely a witness in a State versus case. He has no rights to
prefer appeal against the order of acquittal of the accused by trial court in
a criminal case started by State. The State reserves the discretion not to pre
fer and also to withdraw from the prosecution even in heinous offences. The
victim of crime becomes
the victim of our criminal justice system when the political motivated investi
gation agency or prosecuting agency shows lack of interest or apathy in the
matter of investigation or prosecution on extraneous consideration.

Innovative approach of apex court.

The
Supreme Court has forged new tools, devised new methods and adopted new
strategies for the purpose of making fundamental rights meaningful even to t
he victims of crime of crime in AIR 1995 SC
14, the Supreme Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to suspend and s
tart disciplinary action against two police officers and one medical officer for
making perfunctory investigation of rape case to pay the amount of Rs.2,50,0
00/- as compensation.

There is plethora of decisions, where Supreme

Court awarded compensation to the victims, whose plight was brought to the
notice of the apex court either by themselves or by way of public interest liti
gation. Millions of victims of crime, who cannot approach the apex court out
of ignorance of lack of resources are still crying for justice with the aim of
protecting the human rights of victim in our criminal justice system and to
fulfill the constitutional obligation. The Supreme court should ask the Govern
ment to confer jurisdiction on the criminal courts by making statutory provisi
on for the compensation of the victims of crime, irrespective of whether the a
ccused is convicted or
not and to make statutory provision for participation of the victim in prosec
ution, along with prosecuting agency in
a criminal case instituted on report of police.

Compensation & the need for sensitization of judiciary

Legislation conferred jurisdiction on

the criminal courts under section 357(3) of the code of criminal procedure for
awarding unlimited amount of compensation to
the victims at the time of passing judgment of conviction. This provision is n
ot ancillary to other provisions of criminal procedure code,
but in addition thereto. By the landmark judgment in Hari Kisan’s case AIR
1988 SC 2127 Supreme
Court not only awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the victim, but also di
rected the subordinate criminal courts to exercise the power of awarding com
pensation to the victims of offences in such a liberal way that the victims m
ay not have to rush to the civil courts for compensation to the victims. Unfo
rtunately, the subordinate judiciary is rarely invoking
this provision to award compensation to the
victims, where the accused persons are acquitted of the charge on benefit of
doubt or on any technicalities of laws.

The General Assembly of the United Nation’s has

recommended payment of compensation to the victims of crime by the State,
when compensation is not fully available from the offender
or other sources. Unfortunately, the victims of communal riots, dacoity,
arson and rape are
not getting compensation in our present justice system. Since the State is un
der duty to protect the life, liberty and security of its citizens, it is bound to
pay compensation to the victims of crime irrespective of whether the accuse
d is convicted or acquitted of the criminal charge. As
the government is indifferent
to the crying need of the victims, the apex court directed the Government to
set up a criminal injuries compensation Board, under the supervision of crimi
nal courts for awarding compensation to
victims of all crimes including rape or dacoity, in addition to the directions g
iven to National Commission
for women to evolve a proposal for rehabilitation and compensatory justice to
rape victims.

Payment of compensation to the victims of crime for any injury caused to hi

m has not been institutionalized under
the Indian Penal Laws. Nor any legal right to be compensated has been crea
ted in favour of the victim.
In case of irreversible injury monetary compensation is the sole effective rem
edy.
In India there is neither a comprehensive legislation nor a statutory scheme
providing for compensation by State to offender to victims of crime.

The legislative vacuum of a legal right to monetary compensation for violatio

n of human rights has been supplemented by the higher judiciary by develop
ing a parallel constitutional remedy. In AIR 1983
SC 1086 the Supreme Court for the first time in Rudal
Sah Vs. State of Bihar made it categorically clear that the higher judiciary h
as the power to award compensation for violation of fundamental rights throu
gh the exercise of writ jurisdiction and evolved the principle of compensatory
justice in the annals of human rights jurisprudence. In Oraon Vs. State of
Bihar the Supreme Court direct State of Bihar to pay the sum of Rs.15,000/-
as compensation to Bhama Oraon who was illegally detained for 6 years an
d kept in mental hospital when he was not in
same. In Sebastain Vs. Union of India AIR 1984 SC
1826, on account of failure of Government to produce in habeas corpus petiti
on filed by wives, apex court awarded cost of Rs.
1 lac to be given to wife of each of detenne.
Compensation to Rape victims
: Right of the rape victim to receive compensation flows from Art.21 of the c
onstitution. Every court has
jurisdiction to grant compensation not only at the final stage of trial but als
o to award interim compensation at any interlocutory stage of trial in view
of reported judgment in AIR 1996 SC 922. In 1995(1) SCC
14 - Supreme Court in case of Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum Vs.
Union of India, indicated a scheme to award compensation to rape victim bot
h at the time of trial i.e., interim compensation to rape victim and at the e
nd of the trial. The Supreme Court suggested the establishment of criminal i
njuries compensation Board under Art.
38(1) of the Constitution of India. The rape victim shall be paid compensatio
n by this Criminal injuries compensation board or the court and while awar
ding compensation the following particulars are to be taken into account to c
alculate the compensation amount i.e., pain, suffering and shocks experienced
by the victims and also loss of earnings due to pregnancy and the expenses
of child birth if this occurs as a result of the rape.. Unfortunately till now t
his criminal injuries compensation Board has not been established by the Ce
ntral Government.

In D.K. Basu Vs. State of west Bengal ( 1997) I SCC P-

4, the landmark judgment Supreme Court has laid down number of guideline
s to prevent custodial violence including rape, and has
recognized that custodial rape could be compensated as the same violated Ri
ghts to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitut
ion. In bodhi Sattra Goutham Vs. Subhra Chakraborthy the Hon’ble Apex Co
urt has held that the court of session have every authority to award interim
compensation if prime facie case against the accused has been established t
hat a person had sexual relationship with the prosecutrix on false assurance
of marriage. Supreme Court has directed the guilty person to pay Rs.1000/-
pm as interim compensation to the prosecutrix during pendency of case. This
judgment is a precedent for granting interim compensation to the rape victi
ms. In case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Madhukar N. Mardikar (1991
) I SCC 57 Supreme court held that even a prostitute has a right to privacy
and no person can rape her just because she is a woman of easy virtue.

The duty of Court while trying rape cases

: The police, court and lawyers should come forward to provide all sorts of
assistance to victims of rape. Courts must deal with such cases with utmost
sensitivity. The court should examine the broader probabilities of case and no
t get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in witness
statements. The court should also provide adequate financial assistance to the
victim of rape. It could also award interim compensation as in Rathinam /
State of Gujarat the court awarded interim compensation to tribal woman wh
o was illegally raped in police custody in the presence of her husband. Sum
of Rs.50,000/-
was provided by the State of Gujarat. Apart from providing financial assistan
ce the victim should be provided medical, social,
psychological assistance which would help her to come out of her trauma.

U/s. 18(3) of the protection of Human Rights Act

1993 National Human Rights Commission has powers to advance the cause
of compensatory justice to the victims of Torture.

There is ample scope of law reform to protect the victims of sexual offences
in general and the victims of rape
in particular. Evidence Act be amended suitably. Evidence of victim be taken
in close room. Defense counsel be prohibited from putting question
on past character of victim. Judges and prosecutors may be sanitized to the
need of evaluation of evidence of victims of rape.

Though there is a need of legislation in the field, it is equally essential to i

mplement the existing provisions. The people should be aware of these laws
for their effective implementation. All concern responsible citizen should take
effective steps to implement the provisions under law.

We have to activate our Indian society of victimology. The non-

governmental organization on 14th August,
1992 has formed a society called as Indian society of victimology in Madras
many social scientists, professionals,
research scholars, students & criminal justice functionaries interested in cause
of victims of crime India, a convened by Prof.
Chockalingam & decided to start working under the society named as “
Indian Society of victimology”. He was 1st unanimously elected president
. On 18/09/94 former Judge of Supreme Court of India V.R.
Krishna Iyer has inaugurated the same.
There were 5 symposia organized by Indian society of victimology. First Bien
nial conference was orgainsed at Madras from 12th & 14th August,
1994. Govt. of Tamilnadu has set up a victim assistance fund in April,
1995. Tamilnadu is 1st state in India to set up such a fund to
assist victims of violent crimes in pursuance of the recommendation of India
n society of victimology.

There is a need to see for the criminal Justice reforms and victims’ rights or
ganizations to become more active. Govt. of Maharashtra women
and child development Dept.,
various Boards and women commission should become active in formation of
the group to help such victims of crime.

On 14th August 1992, many social Scientists, Professors, Research Scholars,

Students &
Criminal Justice functionaries interested in cause of victims of crime met at
Dept. of victimology at University of Madras in India and decided to start a
n organization in the name of Indian Society of victimology . He was elected
unopposed as President.

Victimology

Until recently, victims were not studied. They tended to be seen as passive
recipients of the criminal’s greed or anger, “in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
The study of victims, known as victimology, has resulted in theoretical and research
studies, and an awareness of the victim has grown in the public consciousness. There
is now recognition that victims have traditionally not been treated particularly well
by the criminal justice system. Victims suffer not only during the crime, but that
there are also sometimes physical and psychological complications.

Perhaps the first theory to explain victimization was developed by Wolfgang in his
study of murders in Philadelphia. Victim precipitation theory argues that there are
victims who actually initiated the confrontation that led to their injuries and deaths.
Although this was the result of the study of only one type of crime, the idea was first
raised that victims also might play a role in the criminal activity.

Subsequently, some general facts have been gathered about victimization.

• Victimization is more likely at night (6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.). Personal larceny
is more common during the day, with more serious crime occurring at night.

• Crime occurs more in open public areas, although rapes and simple assaults
tend to occur in homes.

• Crime is most frequent in central city areas.

• Western urban areas have the highest crime rates, while the Northeast rural
areas have the lowest.

• The National Crime Survey indicates that 25% of U.S. households have at least
one individual who was victimized in some way during the past year.

• Personal theft is very common. About 99% of Americans will be the victim of
personal theft at some time in their lives, and 87% will be a theft victim three or more
times.

• Men are twice as likely as women to be victims of robbery and assault. The
violent victimization rate for females has been fairly stable, but there has been a 20%
increase for males in the last 15 years.

• Victim risk diminishes rapidly after age 25. Contrary to popular belief,
grandparents are safer than their grandchildren.

• Unmarried/never married people are more likely to be victims than the

married or widowed.

• The poor are more likely to be victims of crime. They are far more likely to be
victims of violent crime, while the middle class are more likely to be victims of
property crime.

• African Americans are victimized at the highest rates. Crime tends to be intra-
racial (criminals and victims of the same race) rather than interracial (criminal and
victim of different races). About 75% of crime is intra-racial.

• Strangers commit about 60% of violent crimes. However, females are more
likely to know their assailants.
• In some studies, over half of offenders report being under the influence of
alcohol and/or other drugs when they committed the offense resulting in
incarceration.

• The characteristics of those most likely to be victimized might be summarized

as: young, black, urban, poor and male.

Theories of Victimization

A number of theories have been advanced to explain some of the findings indicated
above. Life-style theory, for example, argues that certain life-styles increases one's
exposure to criminal offenses and increases risk of victimization, while other life-
styles might reduce risk. For example, increased risk would be likely if a person is
single, associating with other young men (who are at greater risk for criminal
activity), living in urban areas, and going to public places late at night. Reduced risk
would be associated with staying home at night, living in a rural area, being married
and staying at home, and earning more money. According to this explanation, the
probability of crime depends partially on the activities of the victim. Crime is more
likely when victims place themselves in jeopardy.

This explanation would account for some of the findings with respect to victimization.
For example, although the elderly are more fearful of crime (perhaps because they
are more vulnerable), they go out less and take more precautions when they do.
Women also tend to take more precautions, and are more likely to be accompanied be
accompanied by a male or a group, rather than alone. Living in an urban area should
increase risk, because crime is more common in urban areas and the likelihood of
detection is lower.

The Proximity hypothesis suggests that crime is less a function of life-style, but
rather is based on close proximity. Victims and criminals live in the same high crime
areas, characterized by poor, densely populated, highly transient neighborhoods. The
probability of being victimized is more a function of where one lives than one's
lifestyle. Proponents of this argument point out that typically criminals do not go far
from home to commit their crimes, and thus other people in their own neighborhoods
will be more at risk.

A related concept is the equivalent group hypothesis, which points out that criminals
and victims overall share similar characteristics because they are not entirely
separate groups. People who commit crimes are probably at higher risk for
victimization, both because of proximity to other criminals and because of their own
lifestyles, which involve going out at night and associating with other young males
who are involved in crime. In such associations, they place themselves at risk for
becoming the victim of crimes themselves. Some support for this concept comes from
research that indicates that crime victims as a group self-report a high amount of
criminal activity. This hypothesis does not indicate that all victims are criminals,
but that criminals as a group are at higher risk for becoming victims at some point
because of the high-risk nature of their activities and associations.

Routine activities theory argues that victimization is dependent on the routine

activities of people's daily lives. The volume and distribution of predatory crimes
depends on (1) the availability of suitable targets; (2) the absence of capable
guardians; and (3) the presence of motivated offenders. In other words, as people
move about, there must be opportunities (suitable targets), and it must appear that
no one will be present, or that no one will intervene if they do observe the crime.
"Capable guardians" refers to citizens who are watchful and who would take effective
action if the saw criminal activity. Of course, even if there were opportunities and no
one to observe activity, crime would not occur if they were not motivated to commit a
crime.

Routine activities theory accounts for the increase in crime since the 1960s as a
function of changes in activities. For example, the traditional neighborhood in the
city has declined as many people have left for the suburbs, leaving fewer capable
guardians. There are less people at home. Partly this is because more women have
entered the workforce rather than staying home, but perhaps more importantly more
people have automobiles and more places available for them to go, and simply stay
home less. The volume of wealth that can be easily transported has increased. Such
changes have meant that there are more opportunities for crime as a function of
people's daily routines. Most of Western Europe, Australia, Canada, and the United
States have all experienced increases in crime in the latter part of the 20th century,
and many of these changes have occurred in these countries.

Victim Services

The development of new programs and legislation has resulted from the study
of victims. Such programs have included:
• Victim compensation programs, in which the state pays some of the financial
costs of the victim, particularly with respect to violent crime

• Court services, which provide information and assistance to victims

• Crisis intervention and counseling programs for victims, particularly in the

case of rape

• Self-protection programs that teach people how to avoid victimization (target

hardening) and how to mobilize as a community to prevent victimization (such as
neighborhood watch)

There has also been an ongoing debate about victim's rights, and what those rights
ought to be. Should relatives of victims be allowed to speak and discuss the impact
of the crime at parole hearings or at death penalty hearings? (many states now
provide for this measure). Should citizens be warned when an ex-felon moves into
their neighborhood? Some people believe that they should have the right to know
and protect themselves. Others believe that the felon has completed his punishment
and should be allowed the opportunity to rehabilitate himself without potential
harassment from others.

This issue has been particularly debated with respect to "Meghan's Law," a law
proposed by the parents of a child murdered by a child molester. The perpetrator had
a prior history of molestation, and lived in Meghan's neighborhood. The parents
maintained that had they known of his past, they would have taken more
precautions. The proposed law, which has been passed in some states, allows
neighborhood residents to be informed when a sex offender moves into their
neighborhood. There has been controversy because some former offenders have been
driven from neighborhoods, and have difficulty finding a place to live--and who have
served their sentences. These issues are far from resolution.

CONCEPT OF VICTIMOLOGY

Victimology is the scientific study of victims of crime, a sub discipline of criminology.

It seeks to study the relationship between victim and offenders, the persons especially
vulnerable to crimes and the victims. Placement in the criminal justice system. (CJS).
Benjamin Mendelsohn has done pioneering work in this field. B. Mendelsohn is
credited with being the first study to the relationship between victim and doer
(offender) and taken together, he termed to else PENAL COUPLE.

Mendelsohn studied victims on the basis of their contributions to crimes and

classified them into the following categories.

Completely innocent victims, e.g. Child, Persons in sleep

1. Victims with minor guilt and victims of ignorance such as pregnant women
who go to quacks for procuring abortions
2. Voluntary victims, such as the ones who commit suicide or are killed by
euthanasia.
3. victims who are more guilty then offenders such as persons who provoke others
to commit crimes.

the criminal type of victims who commits offences against others and

get killed or hurt by others in self-defense.

DEFINITION OF VICTIMOLOGY

The word “VICTIMOLOGY” was coined in 1947 by a French lawyer, Benjamin

Mendelsohn from a Latin word ‘VICTIMA’ and a Greek word ‘LOGOS’. Victimology
is basically a study of crime from the point of view of the victim, of the persons
suffering from injury or destruction by action of another person or a group of persons.

Schultz (1970) says-

“Victimology is the study of the degree of and type of participation of the victim in the
gensis or development of the offences and an evaluation of what is just and proper for
the victim’s welfare”.

Drapkin and Viano (1974)-

“Victimology is the branch of criminology which primarily studies the victims

of crime and everything that is connected with such are victim”. (as quoted by Krishna
and Singh, 1982).

In a broder prespective Antilla (1975)-

“Victimology studies by logical, Sociological, Psychological and criminological aspects
about the victims and brings into focus the victim-offender relationship and the role
played by the victim in occurence of the offence”.

In extended sense Separovic(1975)-

“Victimology is the entire body of knowledge regarding victims, victimization and to

preserver the rights of victim; thus it is composed of knowledge drawn from such
fields Asiminology, Safety, Law, Medicine, Psychology, Social Work, Education and
Public Administration.7

According to Parsonage (1979)-

“Victimology concern the interaction in which both the criminal and the victim have
functional role and responsibilities.

Shinder (1982)-

“----------- it investigates the relationship between offender and victim in crime

causation. It deals with the process of victimization, of becoming a victim, and in this
context directs much of its attention to the problem victim-offender, sequence, i.e. the
question of whether or not victimization can have crimogenic effects or can encourage
crime..
CONCEPT OF VICTIM

The role, importance and visibility of the victim have varied greatly in human
societies. These variations reflect the historical evaluation of legal concepts, as well
as diverse approached to the interpretation of such notions as that of individual
responsibility.

The concept of the victim is an ancient one that is found in many cultures and that is
inextricably intertwined with religious sacrifice. Early religious rituals from all parts
of the world embody the idea-and often the practice-of divine, human or animal
sacrifice. Epics and mythology offer numerous examples of symbolic sacrifices of
victims. Before societies created law or rules, law and order originated in the
individual. The victimized person himself chooses the offender’s punishment and, if
possible, inflicted it. Revenge was the driving force of such individualist justice, and
deterrence was its chief aim. The need for security as well as the desire to prevent
future attacks often meant that pre-emptive raids were conducted. Thus, in early
societies the relationship of criminal and victim basically reflected a raw struggle for
power and survival, and the right of the individual victim to take vengeance was of
paramount importance.

DEFINITION OF VICTIM

The connotations of term ‘victim’ vary in different legal, social, psychological or

criminological contexts. The penal codes of the erstwhile USSR describe the victim as
follows.

Those who have as a direct result of a crime suffered moral physical or material
damage;

1. Those who have suffered physical, moral, or material damage throw and
attempted offence;
2. Those whose material damage caused by the crime was made good after the
crime, either by the criminal himself or with the help of Militia or of an
individual action;
3. Close relation of person who died as a result of a crime.

From the legal stand point, Fattah (1966) observed-

The Victim may be specific such as physical or moral person (Corporation, State, and
Association) or non specific-and an abstraction.

Quinney (1972)-

“The victim is a conception of reality as well as an object of events. All parties involved
in sequence of actions construct the reality of the situation. And in the larger social
contacts, we all engage in common sense construction of the crime, the criminal, and
the victims”

Separovic (1975) stated-

“We consider a victim as anything, physical or moral person who suffers either as a
result of ruthless design or accidentally. Accordingly we have victim of crime or
offence and victims of accidents.”

Castro(1979)-
“A Victim is a variable of crime or is an accident producing factor for others and for
him.”

In wider perspective defined by Roy Lambron (1983-84)-

“___________ a person who has suffered physical or mental injury or harm, mental
loss or damage or other social disadvantage as result of conduct.

In violation of national penal laws, or

1. deemed a crime under international laws; or

2. constructing a violation of internationally recognized human rights, norms,
protecting life, liberty and personal security; or

which otherwise amounts to “an abuse of power” by persons, who, by reason of their
position of power by authority derived from political, economic or social power,
whether they are public officials, agents or employees of the state or corporate
entities, are beyond the reach of the loss which;

3. although not proscribed by national or international law, causes physical,

psychological or economic harm as severe as that caused by abuses of power
constituting a violation of internationally recognized human rights norms and
creates needs in victims as serious as those caused by violations of such norms”

CHARACTERSTICS OF VICTIMS

Von Henting made the first ever study of the role of victim in crime and found some
general characteristics among them which may be summarized as follows;

The poor and ignorant immigrants and those who are requisitive or greedy are the
victims of offences involving frauds.

1. Quite often the victims of larcency (theft) are intoxicated or sleeping persons.

The depressed or apathetic person is a victim because he is “deprived of warning

posts” and is indifferent harm or injury “in prospect”.

3. Wanton or Sensual persons may become victims due to situations precipitated

by themselves.
4. A lonesome and heartbroken person may become especially vulnerable because
of the loss of critical faculties in him.
Among “general classes of victims”, Von Hentig includes the young, females, the old,
the mentally defective and deranged, the intoxicated immigrants, members of
minority groups and the “dull normal”.

VICTIM AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

One important and basic factor in the administration of criminal justice is the victim’s
decision as to whether he should invoke the judicial process. There are a number of
motives and factors responsible for the wide gap between the actual volume of the
crime and the reports made to the police about it.

Only in the 1940’s did scholarly interest in the criminal-victim relationship

develop, although the founders of criminology had been aware of how crucial it was.
Hans Von Hentig, Benjamin Mendelsohn, and Henry Ellenberger, the last in his
study of the psychological relationship between the criminal and his victims.

It is a parody on the vagaries of the criminal justice systems of the Developing World
that inspite of Thirty years of Independence there has been no conceptual study or
empirical research regarding the victims of criminal offences.

A movement for the recognition of the modern victim of crime as deserving

more effective remedy than the traditional practice of bringing civil suits was begun
by the English penal reformer Margery Fry in 1955. Her call for reform was heeded
in New Zealand in 1963, when that country’s parliament established the first crime
compensation tribunal. This board has discretionary power to award public
compensation to the victim or his dependants in the case of certain specified offences.
The next year, Great Britain’s Tory government announced a similar but non
statuary program. In the United States the first jurisdiction to adopt the
compensation principle was California; which enacted its programs in 1965 and put
it into operation two years later. Since that time, similar or related programs have
been established in some thirty states in the United States and in all the Canadian,
provinces. Financial restitution by the offender to the victim represents another
development in the legal handling of the victim, in the United States, at least forty
normal restitution programs are in operation.

THE VICTIM AS VICTIM OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Students and professionals in the criminal justice system have become increasingly
aware that the victim of a criminal often becomes the victim of criminal justice system
as well as once the victim reports his victimization to the police-the gateway to the
criminal justice system-he routinely faces postponements, delays, rescheduling, and
other frustrations. All their means loss of earnings, waste of time, payment of
transportation and other expenses, discouragement, and the painful realization that
the system does not live up to its ideals and does not serve its constituency, but
instead serves only itself. Many believe that the victim is the most disregarded
participant in criminal justice proceedings. In practice, after the victim has reported
his victimization and provided information to the police, he may not hear from the
police or the prosecutor for a long time, if ever, cases are disposed of without any
consultation with the victim if and when the victim is called for the trial, he is treated
simply as the witness for the state and is subject to long delays, postponements, and
other frustrating experiences.

Newly focused attention has brought professional recognition to the victim’s plight at
the hands of the criminal justice system: As a result, innovative proposals have been
implemented to create victim assistance programmes, to provide the victim with legal
and social referral services, to honor his right to be consulted and to offer his opinions
when the prosecutor plea bargains with the accused, and to totally revamp the
compensation-restitution idea. Some police departments report to victims the
progress being made in investigating and solving their cases, and communities may
provide such services as rape crisis centers and spouse abuse shelters to assist crime
victims by intervening in the crisis and referring the victims to community and others
resources in the case of rape, the women’s movement has spurred victimologists-
mostly males-to give more equitable and balanced attention to the issues surrounding
what some have called “the most despicable but least punished crime.”

Attention to the victim calls for an examination of the appropriate remedies for
victimization. Too often the remedies offered to poor victims reflect middle-class
values. The victim’s point of view should be sought when systems are developed for
compensating crime victims, and the concept of relative loss should be introduced in
debate and deliberations for compensation.

GRIEVANCES AND PROBLEMS OF VICTIMS

The grievances of the victims can be summarized as follows-

1. Inadequacy of the law in allowing the victim to participate in the prosecution

in a criminal case instituted on a police report
2. Failure on the part of the police and prosecution to keep the victims informed
about progress of the case
 3. Inconvenience during interrogation by the police and lengthy court proceeding.
4. Lack of prompt medical assistance to the victims of body offences and victims
of accident.
5. Lack of legal assistance to the victim.
6. Lack of protection when the victims are threatened by the offender.
7. Failure in restitution of victim.

Along with these grievances, the victims of crimes faced multifarious

problems:

I Economic strain of the family

II Change in Social role of dependents.

III Frustration and helplessness leading to suicide.

IV Social stigma.

V Emergence of criminal behavior.

An important aspect of investigating a violent crime is an understanding of the victim

and the relation that their lifestyle or personality characteristics may have
contributed to the offender choosing them as a victim. Please do not misunderstand
the previous statement. In no way are victims being blamed for becoming a victim of
a violent crime. Even high risk victims (to be described shortly) have the right to live
how they wish without becoming a victim of the type of offenses described on this site.
Yet the fact remains, that to understand the offender, one must first understand the
victim.

Victims are classified during an investigation in three general categories that

describe the level of risk their lifestyle represents in relation to the violent crime that
has been committed. The importance of understanding this in an investigation is
directly related back to the level of risk to the offender during the commission of the
crime. This information is important to the investigation to better understand the
sophistication or possible pathology of the offender.
High Risk Victims - Victims in this group have a lifestyle that makes them a higher
risk for being a victim of a violent crime. The most obvious high risk victim is the
prostitute. Prostitutes place themselves at risk every single time they go to work.
Prostitutes are high risk because they will get into a stranger's car, go to secluded
areas with strangers, and for the most part attempt to conceal their actions for legal
reasons. Offenders often rely on all these factors and specifically target prostitutes
because it lowers their chances of becoming a suspect in the crime. Therefore, in this
example, the prostitute is a high risk victim creating a lower risk to the offender.

Moderate Risk Victims - Victims that fall into this category are lower risk victims,
but for some reason were in a situation that placed them in a greater level of risk. A
person that is stranded on a dark, secluded highway due to a flat tire that accepts a
ride from a stranger and is then victimized would be a good example of this type of
victim level risk.

Low Risk Victims - The lifestyle of these individuals would normally not place them
in any degree of risk for becoming a victim of a violent crime. These individuals stay
out of trouble, do not have peers that are criminal, are aware of their surroundings
and attempt to take precautions to not become a victim. They lock the doors, do not
use drugs, and do not go into areas that are dark and secluded.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The victim is essentially an inseparable part of crime. Therefore the phenomenon of

crime cannot be comprehensively explained without incorporating the victim of a
crime. Crime victim, despite being an integral part of crime and a key factor in
criminal justice system, remained a forgotten entity as his status got reduced only to
report crime and appear in the court as witness and he routinely faces postponements,
delays, rescheduling, and other frustrations. All their means loss of earnings, waste
of time, payment of transportation and other expenses, discouragement, and the
painful realization that the system does not live up to its ideals and does not serve its
constituency, but instead serves only itself. Many believe that the victim is the most
disregarded participant in criminal justice proceedings.
It is, therefore, the Indian Higher Courts have started to award the compensation
through their writ jurisdiction in appropriate cases.

Advocate Deepak bade

B.A. LLB. LL.M.