The judicial trend in India has undergone a seismic shift from a "culprit-centric" approach to a "victim-centric" approach. Historically, the criminal justice system focused almost entirely on the punishment of the offender, leaving the victim as a mere witness. Today, the judiciary views Victim Compensation not as an act of charity, but as a legal right under the constitutional framework.
1. Constitutional and Statutory Foundation
The judiciary has anchored the right to compensation in Article 21 (Right to Life). The logic is that if the State fails to protect its citizens from crime, it has a constitutional obligation to provide "reparative justice."
Section 357 CrPC (now Section 395/396 BNSS): Empowers courts to order compensation out of the fine imposed on the offender.
Section 357A CrPC (The Turning Point): Introduced in 2009, this mandated every State Government to prepare a Victim Compensation Scheme (VCS). Crucially, it allows for compensation even if the offender is not caught or is acquitted.
2. Recent Judicial Trends
A. Compensation as a Mandatory Duty
In Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra (2013), the Supreme Court ruled that it is mandatory for every trial court to consider the question of compensation in every criminal case. The court must provide reasons if it decides not to award compensation. This moved compensation from a "discretionary" power to a "statutory duty."
B. Compensation in Cases of Acquittal or "Untraceable" Accused
Earlier, victims only received money if the accused was convicted and fined. In Suresh v. State of Haryana (2015), the Court held that the State cannot escape liability just because the accused was not convicted. The focus shifted to the injury suffered by the victim, regardless of the trial's outcome.
C. The "NALSA" Uniformity Trend
Recognizing that compensation amounts varied wildly between states (e.g., a victim in one state getting ₹50,000 and another ₹5 Lakhs for the same crime), the Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2018) approved the "Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes." This established a uniform minimum standard across India.
D. Focus on "Immediate Relief" (Interim Compensation)
Judicial trends now favor awarding Interim Compensation during the pendency of the trial. In cases of acid attacks or rape, the courts often direct immediate payment to cover medical expenses and trauma, recognizing that "justice delayed is justice denied" for a suffering victim.
3. Scope of Compensation (The "Head" of Claims)
Recent judgments have expanded what "compensation" actually covers:
Pecuniary Damages: Loss of earnings, medical expenses, and legal fees.
Non-Pecuniary Damages: Pain, suffering, emotional trauma, and loss of "amenities of life."
Rehabilitation: Costs for plastic surgery (in acid attacks) or vocational training to help the victim restart their life.
4. Challenges and Criticisms
Despite these positive trends, the judiciary often faces hurdles:
Lower Court Inertia: Trial courts still frequently forget to apply Section 357A unless prompted.
State Budgetary Constraints: Many State Victim Compensation Funds are underfunded, leading to delays in actual payment.
The "Fine" Problem: Under Section 357(1), if no fine is imposed as part of the sentence, the court cannot order compensation from the accused (though it can still recommend the State to pay under 357A).
5. Conclusion: Toward Restorative Justice
The Indian judiciary is moving toward a Restorative Justice Model. The philosophy is that while the offender’s imprisonment satisfies the State's need for "Retribution," compensation satisfies the victim's need for "Restoration."
The recent trend suggests that the "Right to be Compensated" is now an integral part of the Fair Trial concept, ensuring that the victim is no longer the "forgotten man" of the legal system.
No comments:
Post a Comment