Open Access Research Article
COMPENSATION TO VICTIM IN INDIA
Published Paper
Article Details
AURTHORED BY - ASHUTOSH
SUMAN
Law Student, Chanakya
National Law University, Patna
ABSTRACT
The primary aim of the criminal justice system is
to enforce public behavior and safeguard both individual rights and the larger
community. Nevertheless, this system called “secondary victimization” often
leads to discrimination and ill-treatment among crime victims. Modern experts
in victimology suggest that victims should receive more than just punishing
those responsible for their sufferings but also fair treatment, compensation
equal to wrongdoers’ one, throughout which it has become a global focus on
victim-centric methods. In India, provisions of various special laws such as the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 etc. and the Criminal
Procedure Code (CrPC) mainly lay down how compensation for victims is awarded.
The CrPC sections 357 & 357A provide ways through which offenders or
state-run government Victim Compensation Schemes may be ordered to pay
compensation by courts. However, effective implementation is hampered by delays
in addition to poor coordination between central and state governments.
Comprehensive legislation is required to ensure timely and adequate relief for
victims given that although the judiciary has played a role in awarding
compensation in certain cases. The Probation of Offenders Act or Motor Vehicles
Act, among others, provide avenues for this kind of compensation but are
unclear and do not have guidelines. However, despite the efforts made towards
improving victim compensation in India there are still gaps and challenges
within the criminal justice system that prevent meaningful justice to victims
from being achieved. To be effective, this requires comprehensive legislation,
government coordination as well as judicial activism.
Keywords: Criminal justice
system, Victimology, Victim-centric methods, Criminal Procedure Code, Victim
Compensation Schemes, Judicial activism etc.
INTRODUCTION
The primary objective of the
criminal justice system in every country is to safeguard the rights of both
individuals and the state against deliberate violations of societal norms by
dishonest individuals. Achieving this goal requires ensuring that the accused
are duly punished in accordance with the law while also taking all necessary
precautions to safeguard their rights throughout the legal process. However, it
is disheartening to observe that the victims of crime—often considered the
"byproducts" of criminal acts—do not receive the same level of
attention and care from the system. There is a prevailing assumption that the
victim's needs are adequately addressed once the perpetrator is found guilty
and punished, but this is not always the case. While victims typically play a
significant role in the legal process, the extent to which their input is
valued can vary depending on jurisdiction and case specifics. Although victims
often initiate criminal proceedings by reporting incidents to the police, their
involvement typically extends beyond serving as mere sources of information.
However, their participation often ends once the police determine it to be
unnecessary. In many cases, victims may feel marginalized or mistreated under
the guise of gathering additional information, even if further action is not
pursued.
His status becomes
increasingly precarious later on in the trial phase, when he must testify as a
prosecution witness, due to a number of circumstances such as regular
postponements, apathy on the part of the judges, cross-examination by the
prosecution and defence attorney, etc. Additionally, he must identify the
suspects because he is the primary source of information, which increases the
possibility that the accused or suspects may intimidate him. His security and
life are in jeopardy. Consequently, a victim of the criminal justice system
experiences not just dejection but also what is known as "secondary
victimisation" at the hands of the system.
According to contemporary
victimologists, the traditional notion that justice for the victim is solely
achieved through the offender's conviction is flawed and unjust. They assert
that the state has a primary responsibility to protect its citizens' lives,
well-being, and property, and when a crime occurs, the victim suffers due to
the state's failure to fulfill this duty. Consequently, they argue that the
state is obligated to ensure that victims receive equitable treatment and
justice comparable to that of the perpetrator. The growing emphasis on victim-centered
approaches in criminal justice systems worldwide is seen as a positive
development. Additionally, the significant expansion of victim-related norms
within international human rights law in recent years underscores the elevated
status victims now hold in contemporary society.
There exists a broad
understanding regarding the protective and reparative rights of victims,
notwithstanding disagreements regarding their participation rights during
trials and sentencing procedures. In the contemporary criminal justice system,
victim compensation rights have become so important that nearly all
industrialised nations have extensive laws covering them.
VICTIM OF CRIME: AN ANALYSIS
A
"victim" is a person who has been directly or indirectly harmed
financially, emotionally, or physically as a result of a criminal act. In cases where the victim
is an institutionalized entity, such as a corporation, the harm may be
inflicted by an agent or authorized representative of another entity. The
expression “crime victims” refers to all individuals or groups that have been
hurt in some way or another as a result of illegality and can be either
physical, psychological or economic damages.
As per United Nations
Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims from 1985, a victim is
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 the member states
including those laws proscribing criminal abuse of power.”
Hence, anyone who has suffered
harm due to a breach of criminal law is considered a victim. The injury in
question may be physical, mental or economic or emotional damage. It seems that
this definition applies to both natural and legal persons, individuals as well
as collective entities and their dependents. A victim within this term is one
who has sustained harm by helping out those victims in distress or to avoid
being victims themselves.
The term “victim” has been
defined under section 2 (wa) of the CrPC, 1973. As per Code of criminal
procedure, 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 includes guardians and legal heir of the victim.[1]
This definition, introduced by the code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act
No 6 of 2008, heralds a step in the right direction. However, this definition
of victim is too narrow when we compared it with definitions given in other
International human right instruments and restricts the scope of application.
Furthermore, every crime must have at least two victims; first, society/public
that suffers because criminal law commission and secondly actual individual(s)
injured in his/her person, property or reputation.[2]
COMPENSATION UNDER CRIMINAL LAW
Section 357: Order to Pay Compensation
Section 357 of the Criminal
Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973, entitled "Order to Pay Compensation,"
has a broad scope and applicability. It allows for orders of compensation to be
issued by trial courts, sessions courts, appellate courts, and High Courts when
exercising their revisional jurisdiction.[3]
Additionally, this section confers upon the Supreme Court the authority to
order compensation. However, Section 357 is subject to four specific instances.
This provision enables the
complainant to seek reimbursement for expenses incurred during prosecution.
Equally important, these competent tribunals can be used by persons who have
suffered injury or damage from an offence in order to recover their losses.
Furthermore, Section 357 applies
to instances involving property damage. In such scenarios, the court has the
authority to compel payment to the owner who may have suffered loss or
displacement due to offenses like theft, fraud, breach of trust, misappropriation,
or handling of stolen property. The court can also direct the return of the
property to its rightful owner. Importantly, Section 357 permits compensation
even if no fine is specified as part of the penalty outlined in the
corresponding subsection.[4]
Section 357A: Victim
Compensation Scheme
Section 357A under CrPC
lays down an important provision that ensures well-being and support for
victims of crimes. This section mandates state governments to set up Victim
Compensation Schemes as necessary vehicles through which financial assistance
can be provided to victims irrespective of trial outcomes.[5]
Such schemes extend across a wide variety of offenses ranging from sexual
assault, acid attack human trafficking and those causing grievous hurt or
death.
The framework of compensation
schemes alleviates the physical, emotional, and financial hardships experienced
by victims. They pay specific amounts for damages resulting from criminal acts
which include but not limited to medical bills, lost wages, and rehabilitation
costs. It is important to note that accessibility is one of the key concerns as
these schemes ensure that victims or their representatives can easily apply for
compensation within stipulated time periods.
Designated authorities,
often District Legal Services Authorities, evaluate compensation applications,
taking into account scheme guidelines to determine appropriate amounts. What
this means is that Victim Compensation Schemes do not discriminate against any
victim in terms of their socio-economic characteristics.
Beside state level schemes
Central Government may also bring about a Central Victim Compensation Scheme so
as to render national assistance to victims. Therefore, Section 357A epitomizes
the priority accorded by our legal system toward meeting the needs and
well-being of crime’s casualties through timely and adequate compensation plus
support services aimed at aiding their recovery and reformation.
Section 358: Compensation to
person groundlessly arrested
Section 358 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 is about compensation for persons who are arrested
without any reason. This stipulation allows for an indemnity to be given to
anybody who has been detained without a good cause.[6]
To avail this section, a connection must exist between the petitioner and the
arrestee that is based on information which does not warrant such action. In
these cases, the magistrate can reward the affected party with no more than one
thousand rupees.
Section 359: Order to pay cost in non-cognizable cases
Section 359 pertains to
instances where a non-cognizable offense is committed and the individual
lodging a complaint before the court is convicted. This provision grants
appellate courts, High Courts, or Courts of Session exercising their revisional
jurisdiction the authority to mandate the payment of costs. Furthermore, apart
from any punishment imposed by the court, the accused may also be directed to
reimburse the expenses incurred by the plaintiff on prosecution.[7]
Central Victim Compensation Scheme
The Central Victim
Compensation Scheme was launched by the Ministry of Home Affairs in August 2015
as an addition to the victim compensation programmes already in place. Notably,
it increased the compensation amounts, particularly for victims of rape and
sexual assault, and addressed the needs of women with partial or complete
disabilities resulting from cross-border violence. Rajasthan, along with
several other states, has adopted this scheme, offering uniform compensation
amounts across all states. For instance, victims of acid attacks and rape are
entitled to Rs. 3 lakhs, while Rs. 1 lakh is allocated for the rehabilitation
of human trafficking victims. Furthermore, a clause was included
that increased compensation for victims under the age of 14 by 50%. Most state governments have adjusted their schemes
accordingly based on directives from the Union Government, with the exception
of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil
Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh.
COMPENSATION UNDER INDIAN
CONSTITUTION
Article
32 and 226 of the constitution grant the judiciary the authority to grant
monetary damages as a restorative measure in situations when a citizen's right
to life and personal liberty has been infringed by the police or other
governmental institutions. This is an important re-reading of Article 21 because it says
that the right to be released immediately from illegitimate detention also
involves government responsibility to pay compensation.
In the case of Rudal Shah
v State of Bihar[8],
the Supreme Court determined that such imprisonment following acquittal
persisted for a duration of fourteen years. This time
frame ran from June 1968—when the Court of Session dismissed the
petitioner—until October 1982. In this case, the
court realized how much this detention had violated him and described it as a
duty that squarely lay on the executive arm.
For that reason, the apex
court ordered the state to pay Rs.35,000 by way of interim compensation for
unlawful detention of the petitioner. It is a remarkable decision highlighting
judiciary commitment to the protection of fundamental rights and ensuring that
victims are appropriately compensated in terms of money. The Court’s remark
highlighted compensations as aiding measure for unconstitutional acts performed
by government organs infringing on fundamental rights. It recognized that
administrative sclerosis often results in flagrant violations of these rights
whose breach can be corrected through compensation. In Rudal Shah v State of
Bihar, the court overturned Kasturi Lal[9]
case thus establishing negligence and wrongs committee by its agents upon which
liability can be established against the state.
The Supreme Court has
demonstrated its willingness to establish novel remedies within its original
jurisdiction under Article 32 by holding the state financially accountable for
severe breaches of a petitioner's fundamental rights as outlined in Article 21.
However, concerns arise regarding the extent of this responsibility and whether
it encroaches upon legislative prerogatives.[10] Critics
argue that creating new remedies under Article 32 may involve judicial
decisions on policy matters that are traditionally within the purview of the
legislature. This could potentially violate the constitutional framework for
separation of powers. In addition, creation of remedies like compensation
without legislative authorization might have to entail decisions about resource
allocation which is typically a legislative function. Nevertheless, through its
power to create new remedies under Article 32, the Apex Court has demonstrated
its determination to preserve human rights and ensure effective reparations in
case they are violated.[11]
The case of D.K. Basu v.
State of West Bengal introduced a fresh outlook on the rights of arrestees and
the assessment of compensation within public law. India has been found to have
a major problem with custodial deaths, which are considered to be some of the
worst crimes committed in a country with an established legal system. The Court
reaffirmed that all types of mistreatment and inhumane punishment fall under
the purview of Article 21, which safeguards the right to life and personal
liberty.[12]
It
recognized financial damages as an effective way of addressing violation of
people’s fundamental rights such as freedom or life by authorities involved in
public service. By doing so, it placed vicarious liability on the state for
their tortious conduct, thus re-emphasizing its duty to protect these rights. It is clear from decisions
of the courts that there has been progressive application of Articles 32 and
226 of the Indian Constitution by both the Supreme Court and the High Courts in
awarding money as a panacea in writ petitions. It can be observed that such
claims were unavailable to victimized plaintiffs at ordinary lower courts.
However, what arises is that judicial redress could only take place where state
liability was manifest. Nevertheless, this has not always been the case in
routine incidences of violence.
COMPENSATION UNDER SPECIAL LAWS
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
The Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is a legislation in India aimed at providing
protection and relief to women who are victims of domestic violence. Under this
Act, victims of domestic violence, which includes physical, sexual, verbal,
emotional, and economic abuse, are entitled to various forms of assistance and
support, including compensation.[13]
This Act is unique in that it gives the victim continuous access to
resources or facilities that they are entitled to use or enjoy because of their
domestic relationship, such as shared housing. The victim must be informed of
their right to pursue a protection order, financial relief order, custody
order, residence order, compensation order, or any combination of these
remedies by the police officer or magistrate who receives the complaint. The
protection of women's rights as specified by the constitution is the subject of
this legislation.[14]
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
Courts may order convicts freed
on probation or admonition for good behaviour, provided they pay costs and
compensation to the aggrieved person, under the Compensation to Victims of
Crime (Probation of convicts) Act, 1958. Section 5 covers damages, saying that
a court may, in its sole discretion, release an offender on probation or
admonition for good behaviour in order to reimburse the victim for any
"loss" or "injury" that the court deems appropriate. This
section also grants courts the authority to pay proceedings costs when making
such orders. Sub-section (2) stipulates that the compensation ordered in
sub-section (1) is recoverable from the victim as a fine imposed on them during
the proceedings outlined in this section. However, in practice, Indian courts
are not giving sufficient attention to this provision.
Therefore, no statute,
including the Probation of Offenders Act of 1958 and the Code of Criminal
Procedure of 1973, grants a “right” to receive compensation; instead, it is up
to the court's satisfaction and discretion to make that determination. This
discretionary power makes it highly impossible for these provisions to serve
their intended purpose and increases chances of maximum misuse. In Sukhbir
Singh (1988), the Apex Court appropriately observed that, “section 357 is an
important provision but the Court have seldom invoked it perhaps due to the
ignorance of the object of it…..we recommend all Courts to exercise this power
liberally so as to meet the ends of justice in a better way.”[15]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
The number of motor vehicles on
the road has increased significantly, and this has resulted in an increase in
road accidents that cause fatalities or serious injuries to victims, as well as
poor road maintenance and driver irresponsibility. The notion of compensatory
jurisprudence for victims of motor vehicle accidents is introduced in Section
40 of this Act. It stipulates that in the event that someone is killed or
rendered permanently disabled as a result of the negligence of the vehicle
owner, the owner must pay a certain amount in compensation.[16]
The Act also guarantees the rapid resolution of such claims by stressing that
they "shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible." standards
that must be adhered to by administrative entities constituted under the Act.
Section 163 outlines the payment of compensation in hit-and-run accidents and
mandates the specification of the form, manner, and time frame for submitting
applications, the designated recipients of applications, and the procedural
requirements to be followed by administrative authorities established under the
Act.[17]
Compensation may be decided
using a structured formula, as specified in the Second Schedule, which is
provided in tabular form, in accordance with Section 163-A of the Act. In order
to make a claim under this section, the plaintiff need not state or provide
evidence that the vehicle owner's negligence or wrongdoing caused the
plaintiff's death or permanent disability. Consequently, there is no
disagreement over this issue; the Second Schedule's Section 2, which is founded
on the idea of no-fault liability, governs the compensation granted under this
clause. In comparison to Section 140, which grants up to Rs 25,000 in the event
of permanent disablement and up to Rs 50,000 in the event of death, Section
163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act provides much larger compensation, as seen by
the figures and sums stated in tabular form in the Second Schedule. Before
Section 163-A was added to the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988, in order for the
owner of the offending vehicle to be held liable for damages when a victim or
their heirs petitioned a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, it was essential to
demonstrate that the driver was at fault. This posed a challenge for dependents
of deceased victims who may not have witnessed the accident or may not recall
the exact circumstances if injured. Denial of compensation on grounds of
failure to establish negligence by the driver did not seem equitable to victims
in welfare states. Recognizing this oversight, Parliament rectified it by
enacting the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act 1994 (54 of 1994), which introduced
Section 163-A into the MV Act, effective from November 14, 1994.[18]
Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities)
Act, 1989
The sole purpose of this
legislation is to prevent crimes against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
people from being committed and to aid those who have been victimised by such
crimes. Effective enforcement of the provisions outlined in Section 21 of this
Act is mandatory for the State Government. The use of the phrase "shall
take such measures as may be necessary" eliminates any room for discretion
and mandates that the government, among other things, (a) provide adequate
provisions, such as legal aid, so that those who have been subjected to
atrocities can access justice; (b) pay for the transportation and lodging costs
of witnesses, including victims, during an investigation or trial; and (c)
offer victims of atrocities social and economic rehabilitation. Furthermore, on
March 31, 1995, the central government enacted the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, utilising the
authority granted by sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act. Rule twelve,
"Measures to be Taken by the District Administration," mandates that
the district magistrate, subdivisional magistrate, or any other executive
magistrate must give victims of atrocities, their dependents, and family
members prompt aid in cash, kind, or both. Food, water, clothing, housing,
medicine, transportation, and other basics for human beings are usually
included in this help.[19]
Workmen Compensation Act,
1923
The Act requires employers
to compensate their employees for personal injuries sustained in accidents that
occur during the course of their employment. Section 3 specifies the employer's
obligation to provide compensation if a worker suffers injury due to an
accident arising during work. The employer must pay compensation for injuries
resulting in total or partial disablement of the worker for more than seven
days, and for injuries resulting in death caused by accidents not directly
attributable to the worker's intoxication or willful disobedience to safety
rules. The Act also outlines how compensation is determined by classifying
injuries as permanent partial disabilities or arising from occupational
diseases, and specifies compensations payable under Schedules I, III, and IV
provided in the Act.
JUDICIAL CONTRIBUTION
In several instances,
Judiciary has convicted the accused criminals while providing compensation for
victims as per Crpc. The study of the past cases shows that earlier,
judiciary’s inclination on awarding compensation under Sec 357 was not bright.
In the case of Palaniappa Gounder v. State of Tamil Nadu[20]
and others, the Supreme Court deliberated on the applicability of Section 357. During
the trial, the accused was originally given a hanging death sentence; however,
the High Court overturned this decision and instead sentenced the accused to
life in prison with a fine of Rs. 20,000, of which Rs. 15,000 was ordered to be
given to the victim's surviving family members. Although the apex court upheld
the decision of the High Court regarding the imposition of the fine, it reduced
the amount to Rs. 15,000. The court noted, however, that there is flexibility
in imposing fines, and it is not mandatory to do so on all occasions. It
emphasized that legality and propriety are distinct considerations. The court
argued that imposing both the death penalty and a fine would serve no societal
purpose and would be unnecessary.
The Supreme Court held in
Sarwan Singh and Others v. State of Punjab[21]
that compensation should only be given out when the circumstances warrant it.
If the court rules that compensation should be given, it must also take into
account whether the accused can afford to pay that sum, since otherwise there
would be no real benefit. It further held that various factors, including the
nature of the offence, the accused person's capacity, the victim's claims, and
other pertinent factors, must be taken into account when awarding compensation
under section 357. It also declared that the excessive amount of fine, out of
which compensation would be deductible, must be taken into consideration.
However, in a different
Hari Singh v. Sukbir Singh[22]
case, the Supreme Court ruled that the court's Section 357 authority to grant
compensation is supplementary rather than superfluous to other penalties. This
statute aims to do more than only make amends for victims who have been wronged
by the criminal justice system. This clause states that such compensation must
be paid in a reasonable amount. The degree of reasonableness would rely on a
number of variables, including the type of offence, the accused's financial
situation, the veracity of the victim's claims, etc. The court further
emphasised this point by declaring that justice cannot be served if judges are
not benevolent in their application. In Jacob George v. State of Kerala[23],
the court further stated that a penalty could be imposed in lack of the Sec.
357 judgement for compensation to be paid. The state contended in Palaniappa's
case that the Apex Court's view on the use of its authority to provide damages
in addition to a strict punishment was restricted to its own facts and that
there has been a recent trend towards the acknowledgment of an aggrieved
party's entitlement to reparations.
Court also held that in
the effort to protect the rights of the accused, the victim or his family, who
had been incapacitated by the criminal act of the accused, cannot be forgotten.
It may be true that the life or the honour which is lost cannot be recompensed
but monetary compensation would at least provide some solace. The change in
trend may be because of momentum that was taking place in the international
arena especially in the wake of Declaration on Basic principles of justice to
victims of crime and abuse of power, 1985.
CONCLUSION & SUGGESTIONS
The foregoing discussion
implies that the legal structure governing payment of compensation to victims
of crime in India shows that there were gaps within the Indian law regarding
victim compensation. Nonetheless, the Law Commission of India proposed
amendments to the Code, which were subsequently enacted through the Criminal
Amendment Act of 2008.It further enhances the province for legislation on
damages. The need of time is provided in this amendment s.357A in the code.
This is why the law should be made more friendly to victims so that individuals
can also experience justice as it exists within a modern and complicated
society like India’s. Through this process, real justice becomes possible for
everyone and it can only serve the purpose if there is a possibility of
rehabilitation and total elimination of tribulations suffered by victims
through compensatory measures. In addition, it gives an opportunity for a
victim to be compensated by an accused person while if he fails to do so due to
any reason then District/State Legal Authorities would pay suitable
compensation after enquiry which should be completed within two months for
unidentified/untraced accused persons.
However, much like Section
357A, its effectiveness is limited due to the necessity of coordination between
the central and state governments to facilitate funding for compensation
schemes. This lack of coordination may stem from political opposition between
different parties at both the central and state levels, undermining the
benevolent intent of such provisions. Additionally, Clause (2) of Section 357A
stipulates that the court must make the initial recommendation for
compensation, which may lead to delays and denial of justice to crime victims
as the District or the State Legal Authorities then determine the quantum of
compensation. Consequently, victims may find themselves suffering further due
to prolonged legal processes. Despite several amendments to the Criminal
Procedure Code, there has been a notable absence of comprehensive legislation
pertaining to compensation, which could provide genuine relief to victims of
crime. This observation confirms the initial hypothesis that the existing legal
framework in various states, which requires wrongdoers to compensate their
victims for any loss or injury resulting from the commission of an offense, is
insufficient.
Besides these, there are
many special laws which have been enacted to compensate victims however this
study indicates that the statutes are for different purposes and lack guidance
from the legislature and judiciary. These laws do not serve much help to victims
but instead leave them in dilemma. These have only helped their own victims.
Inclusion of ss. 357 A, 357 B, 357 C is a small step towards an understanding
of some victim’s rights within criminal justice systems. For far too long, the
criminal justice system has focused on protection measures for the guilty
person. There is widespread support for a workable, social justice based and
efficient compensation scheme because the crime victim as part of the
administration of criminal justice deserves constitutionalized social justice.
On another note, it is clear that under Art.32 interpretation Supreme Court has
made deviations from traditional phraseology and created new vistas in relief
structure especially concerning personal liberty guaranteed by Article21.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
-
·
S. Murlidharan, „Right of Victims in the Indian
Criminal Justice System? [2005] NHRC
· Abhishek Anand, „Compensation to the Victim of
Crime: Assessing Legislative Frame Work and Role of Indian Courts?
(legalserviceindia.com 2012)
· N. Chandrashekaran Pillai,
R.V. Kelkar?s Criminal Procedure (6th ed. 2018).
· Ratanlal & Dhirajlal,
Commentary on the Code of Criminal Procedure (18th 2006).
· D. Gaur, Textbook on the
Code of Criminal Procedure (1st ed. 2016).
WEBSITES -
·
www.academia.edu
· www.deccanherald.com
· www.legalserviceindia.com
· www.thelawbrigade.com
[1] § 2(wa), The Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
[3] § 357, The Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
[4] Dr KN Chandrasekharan
pillai, R.V. Kelkers Criminal procedure,614, ( 5th ed, 2008, 2012 reprint).
[5] § 357A, The Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
[8] AIR 1983 SC 1086 .
[9] Kasturi Lal v. State of
U.P., AIR 1965 SC 1039.
[10] Art. 50; Also see
Krishnan Venu Gopal, “A New Dimension to the Liability of the State under
Article 32,” Indian Bar Review, 369 Vol. 11(4) (1984).
[11] Dellinger W.E., “Rights
and Remedies : The constitution as a sword,” 85 Harv. Law. Rev. (1971).
[13]
A Critical Study On Victim Compensation Under Various Laws Of India, AAkriti
Sharma, Legal service India, (15th March 2024, 05:05 pm),
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-6103-a-critical-study-on-victim-compensation-under-various-laws-of-india.html.
[15] A
Critical Study On Victim Compensation Under Various Laws Of India, AAkriti
Sharma, Legal service India, (15th March 2024, 05:05 pm), https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-6103-a-critical-study-on-victim-compensation-under-various-laws-of-india.html.
[16] Introduction"
(PDF). The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways.
Retrieved 4 July 2013.
[17] Ibid.
[18] "Government to
amend MV Act for simplifying accident claims", The New Indian Express, 8
July 2016 .
[19] "A Wrong Turn in
the Road to Equality". Centre for Law & Policy Research. Retrieved 17
February 2019
[21]
2000 AIR SCW 1895
[23]
1994 SCC (3) 430.
Article Information
COMPENSATION TO VICTIM IN INDIA
Authors: ASHUTOSH SUMAN
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/04/05
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.