“There was complete disenfranchisement. We were treating victims somewhat like inanimate objects to be present, to say their piece, and to then be removed from the process.”

Our Constitution, founded upon principles of justice, equality, and fairness, bestows fundamental rights upon all citizens, safeguarding their equitable and unhindered enjoyment. Within this constitutional framework, victim rights assume a critical position. These rights, integral to an individual’s identity, must be safeguarded against violations in accordance with the law.

Judicial Approach to Victim Rights

Embedded in the constitutional ethos, the Articles 32 and 226 provide victims with the means to seek court redressal for the restoration and/or compensation of their violated basic and legal rights, infringed by the accused. This foundation was laid down in the landmark judgment of State of Gujarat v. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat. The Supreme Court, while striving to safeguard the convict’s rights and offer equitable opportunities, emphasized the obligation to address the victim and their family’s suffering, particularly in the instances of death or loss of livelihood resulting from the crime. A significant illustration of addressing violations of natural justice principles is evident in the landmark case of Vishaka and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan. The court introduced the “Vishaka Guidelines” in response to the absence of legislation prohibiting sexual harassment in workplaces. This judicial decision highlighted severe breaches of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. Consequently, this influential ruling precipitated the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act of 2013 and amendments to the Indian Penal Code, notably regarding rape.

The landmark decisions taken by the court in various cases outline the efforts of the court to protect the victims by considering their needs and creating a valuable outcome favorable to society.

Legislative Intent in Formulation of Victim Rights Laws

While formulating the different criminal laws, it is observed that the existing criminal legal framework, formulated to deter crime and ensure societal security, predominantly adopts an offender-oriented approach. The introduction of punishments across a spectrum of offences reflects this perspective. Regrettably, the protection of those victimized by crime has been largely secondary to these efforts. While victims suffer physically, emotionally, and mentally, their role in the criminal justice system often remains limited to that of a key witness for the prosecution. Yet, achieving justice goes beyond mere offender punishment. There is a compelling need to elevate victims’ status in legal proceedings, allowing them active participation and a sense of ownership in pursuit of justice. Safeguarding victims’ dignity, a fundamental right, should be a paramount concern for lawmakers.

In the pursuit of justice, victim rights emerge as a universally acknowledged imperative. The existing criminal justice system, predominantly offender-focused, has marginalized victim participation. Equitable treatment, restitution, compensation, and assistance constitute essential rights universally accessible to victims. Shifting the system’s emphasis from convict conviction to victim-centricity is paramount.  There existed a lacuna in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) which states that under Section 321 CrPC, the prosecution was allowed to withdraw the prosecution of the case at any time, before the judgment was pronounced, with the consent of the court. However, this lacuna was addressed in Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Section 360 of the BNSS mirrors the previous Section 321 CrPC, with an additional proviso that the victim must be heard before a withdrawal is allowed. This recognizes the victim as a key stakeholder in a criminal trial. In Ratan Singh v State of Punjab, Justice Krishna Iyer shows apathy to the victims by stating that “It is a weakness of our jurisprudence that victims of crime and the distress of the dependent of the victim do not attract attention of law. In fact, the victim reparation is still the vanishing point of our criminal law. This is the deficiency in the system which must be rectified by the legislature.”

Further in the case of Rabindra Nath Ghosal v. College Of Calcutta, the court upheld that the purpose of public law is not only to civilize the society but also assure its citizens that the legal system will protect their interests and rights. The court further contended that “when the Court moulds the relief by granting “compensation” in proceedings under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution seeking enforcement or protection of fundamental rights, it does so under the public law by way of penalizing the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which has failed in its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen.” The criminal justice system has moved its focus to criminals and whether it is their conviction, treatment, or rehabilitation, the main objective has become proving if the accused is guilty or innocent. As mentioned above, the role of the victim becomes restrictive to only being a key witness in the trial.

Proposed Recommendations

After thorough research on both the paradigms taken by the judiciary and the legislature respectively, it has been observed that there is a shortcoming on the part of the legislature in ensuring the importance of victim rights.

The current system, being so offender-oriented, loses the importance of the victim in the trial which leads to not being present in their proceedings, having almost no say other than being called to the witness stand. This is the status after the investigation begins. Talking from the grassroots level, the victims are disassociated from the crime after reporting the crime to the police personnel. The victim cannot report the crime to a supervisor of the police if he/she is not satisfied with the police officers.

There are instances when there is a delay on the side of the police in filing the FIR, hence causing a delay in the investigation and questioning the credibility of the story so narrated by the victim. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Harilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, that when an FIR is delayed for no good reason, the court should carefully and closely examine the veracity of the information and ensure that the FIR is not fabricated or influenced by external factors. This will create uncertainty for the victims to trust the judicial process for giving them the justice they deserve because of the fault of the system. The importance of a victim’s involvement in the case is because they have a right to maintain and protect their integrity and dignity. Being able to be a part of their own proceedings, the victim can be satisfied with the efforts of the court in prosecuting the offender.

The new BNSS tries to resolve this by recognizing victim participation in the criminal trial, through a “Victim Compensation Scheme” under Section 396. The section lays down that every state government, in co-ordination with the Central government shall prepare a scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation to victims or their dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation. In the subsequent sub-sections, the District Legal Service Authority has been given the authority to decide the quantum of the compensation and if in case, it is not sufficient, the Trial Court can make a recommendation for compensation. It also provides the victims a chance to make an application to the State or the District Legal Services Authority to award compensation in cases where the offender is not identified and no trial has taken place.

On the lines of inclusivity of the rights of the victim, the importance of their rights can be further explained through the branch of criminology known as Victimology. It is the scientific study of crime victims introduced by Benjamin Mendelsohn, that helps in pointing out the significance of victim rights. Understanding victim characteristics and behavior is vital in comprehending their role in criminal acts. The consequences of crime victimization span physical injuries, mental health afflictions, and economic burdens. While considering the present situation of the country, there are victims who are blamed for their victimization by the society. The principlethat “they got what they deserved” creates a negative environment for the victims after already being a part of the suffering. This gives rise to a need to inculcate this branch of criminology while enforcing these laws, as empathetic consideration of these aspects is essential to counterbalance societal biases against victims, particularly those from marginalized backgrounds.

Rights given to victims are not to be overlooked and are very important since they are the first party to report the crime. Neglecting their presence after reporting the crime and shifting the entire focus of the crime to the accused is being unfair and violative of the basic principles of justice, equality, and fairness on which the entire criminal justice system has been established.

Conclusion

The governments recent move to replace colonial laws with Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Sanhita, emphasize the idea of justice over punishment. On the part of the legislature, this approach is in the progressive direction of creating an inquisitorial criminal system that prioritizes victim rights, fosters speedy trials, and engenders a balanced approach. This approach will also help the court to adjudicate the matter within the core principles of justice, equality, and fairness.By incorporating these values into the legal framework, the court system is better equipped to navigate cases in a manner that upholds fundamental principles, promotes equality before the law, and ensures a fair and just resolution of legal matters.