VICTIM

Within the Indian legal framework, the term victim is defined under Section 2(wa) of

the CrPC, 1973 as,

“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 victim includes his or her
guardian or legal heir.”

Andrew Karmen defined victimology as:

“relations between victims and perpetrators, relations between victims and the criminal
justice system, police and courts, and corrections to officers, and relations between victims
and other social groups and institutions, such as the scientific study of media, business, and
social movements. “

From this definition, we can see that victimology encompasses the study of 

1. Victimization; 
2. Victim-Offender relationships; 
3. Victim-Criminal Justice System relationships; 
4. Victims and the Media; 
5. Victims and the Costs of Crime and 
6. Victims and Social movements. 

Types of victim:
Different ideologist has proposed different types of victimologies which we will discuss
below one by one:

1- Fattaah (1989):

According to him, there are two types of victimology namely:

 Humanistic- It deals with the actions which fight for the cause of human rights of
the victim of crime.

 Scientific- It deals with research and activities that deal with victimology as a
separate field and helps in the evolution and development of the same.

2- Jan. J.M. van Dijk:

He has given us two important for victimology which is still prevalent in India-

 Penal- In this type of victimology, mainly talks about illegal criminal acts,
research is done upon the data related to causation of crime, victim-offender
interaction and related issues. Penal victimology is also known as interactionist
victimology. Penal victimologists are generally not very keen in providing
professional assistance to the victims.
 General victimology- This particular type of victimology is known as assistance
based victimology because it focuses more on reducing and sorrows of victims
rather than merely studying and interpreting the victims.

3- Hans von Hentig (1887–1974):

In the mid-1900s, Von Henting came up with new thinking of merging the study of penal and
general victimology and discussed the relationship between criminal and victim. He   that
victimization is based on psychological, social and biological factors and on the basis of this
he divided victims on the basis of three classes namely:

1. The General Classes of Victims

 The Young
 The Female
 The Old
 The Mentally Defective
 Immigrants, Minorities, and Dull Normals

2. The Psychological Types of Victims

 The Depressed
 The Acquisitive
 The Wanton
 The Lonesome and the Heartbroken
 The Tormentor
 The Blocked, Exempted and Fighting

3. The Activating Sufferer:

When the victims are themselves responsible for their victimization due to reasons such as
certain dispositions, age, alcohol, age, loss of self-confidence etc operates as an activator on
the victim.

The most affected section of people

Any random individual can be targeted by a criminal and be subjected to victimization but
there is a particular section of people who are more vulnerable and targeted to victimization
than others. The characteristics which make them more prone to crime are their physical
wellbeing, economic status, social status, societal norms etc.

In the current scenario, laws are evolving rapidly, new laws related to vulnerable sections of
the populations such as children, women, mentally ill, and elders have been made to provide
timely justice and to mitigate the suffering of the victims. Laws such as The Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act, 2007, Prevention of Child Abuse and Victim Protection, the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, are made to
particularly to prevent victimization and providing timely justice to special category in which
they belong. Even though laws are rapidly and more and more of laws related to victimology
is in the process of developing, our system has a number of drawbacks and challenges both
national and international and in order to overcome these challenges and provide assistance to
victims, judiciary had taken some steps. Briefly describing these vulnerable sections can be
grouped as:

1. Elderly victims: Abuse, neglect and financial exploitation of elders by their

family members and others are very common these days, forms a base for
victimization. Such victimization can be in the form of physical, emotional.
Neglectful, financial, sexual and self-neglect. In order to protect and mitigate
them, certain laws have been made such as The Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
2. Child victims: Lack of mental maturity, physical strength and gullible nature
make them highly dependent on others and vulnerable. There is a need to
separately address and deal with them because once they are subject to any kind of
cruelty, it will leave a deep mark on them for a lifetime if not mitigated on time.
That is why they require separate treatment from elders. The juvenile laws made
for children are specifically child-centric and child-friendly like Prevention of
Child Abuse and Victim Protection, juvenile justice act 2015, human trafficking
and child exploitation prevention act etc. Parliament had also made a national
commission for the protection of child rights in the year 2007 to ensure that all
legislative and administrative policies are laid according to the rights of children
mentioned in Indian Constitution and the UN convention of child rights.
3. Victims of sex offences: The most common type of victimization prevalent in our
society is on the grounds of sexual pleasure, mostly women are targetted to such
kind of victimization. Offences like rape, marital rapes, sexual assault, outraging
the modesty of women, stalking and many more comes under its ambit. These
sexual offences have psychological, emotional and physical effects on victims, it
takes time to overcome these effects because of the such as depression, flashbacks,
anxiety, self-harm, substance abuse, STDs, suicidal tendencies to name a few.
4. Female victims: Nothing victimizes women more than a patriarchal society and
gender disparity. Apart from sexual exploitation, there is offence like disparity in
wages, maternity leave, the ill-treatment to women in homes, dowry,
discrimination in the workplace and many more still prevalent in our modern
society due to its patriarchal structure that is why there is a need to protect women
and give them special treatment. The National Commission for Women in India is
 the apex body that works for protecting and promoting the interests and rights of
women. Similar Commissions have also been established in most of the states in
India. These Commissions were constituted under the National Commission for
Women Act, 1990. It spreads awareness among women and about women rights,
ensures justice to them, paves the way for their right to life with dignity etc.
5. Minority groups and weaker sections: India being a hub to multilingualism,
multiculturalism and biggest democracy in the world, have given a way to socio-
economic disparity among them. Such disparity has lead to majority and minority
group, economically weak and economically strong group and socially weak and
socially strong group. Consequently, of the weaker sections of the society by the
stronger one is not a shock-horror and will lead to denial and infringement of
rights. Therefore, it is quintessential that laws should be made in order to protect
these people and their rights. The National Commission for Scheduled Castes in
India looks into the implementation of legislation like the Protection of Civil
Rights Act, 1955 and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Protection Of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. It aims at ensuring socio-economic development and
protection of the Scheduled Castes from victimization. Similarly, as per the
Constitutional mandate, the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes looks into
the affairs related to the scheduled tribes and strives to prevent their exploitation
and assure their upliftment. The National Commission for Minorities takes care of
the interests of the minority of the country. It was set up under the National
Commission for Minorities Act, 1992 and  Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists
and Zoroastrians (Parsis) have been notified by the Central Government as
minorities.
Judiciary’s contribution towards evolving victimology
Krishna Iyer J. in Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab lamented, “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.”

An analysis of the working of the Indian judiciary shows that the traits of compensatory
jurisprudence existed in India, even prior to the 1985 UN Declaration. In Sukhdev Singh v.
Lal Chand, a single Bench of the Punjab High Court directed, “if the compensation is not
paid within three months the respondents would be called upon to serve the sentence imposed
by the learned trial court….” It was submitted that this case was not correctly decided. There
can be a penalty for default of payment of compensation. In Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu
and Kashmir, it was stated, “the right to award monetary compensation by way of exemplary
costs otherwise is now established by the decision of this court in Rudal Shah v. State of
Bihar and Anr and Sebastian M.Hongray v. Union of India.” Hussainara Khatoon & Ors v.
Home Secretary, State of Bihar recognized victimization due to abuse of state power.

The case felt the need to address and redress such grave violation of basic human rights
which directly infringed the fundamental right to live with dignity under Art. 21 of
victimology was mainly inspired by the liberal interpretation of fundamental rights of the
Indian constitution. The judicial activism of Indian courts have identified rights of the victim
in India, and surprisingly most people who had gone through victimization were offenders
who were victimized during the criminal justice process. Nevertheless, the jurisprudential
contribution of the supreme court help in the development of victimological jurisprudence.
Even though the development of victimology is mainly because of judiciary but the
legislature was not completely ignorant of this issue. Rules of evidence, as provided
in Sections 151 & 152, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, protect victims and witnesses from being
asked indecent, scandalous, offensive questions, and questions intended to annoy or insult
them. As provided in Section 312 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Criminal courts is also
under an obligation to order for payment of reasonable expenses incurred by the witness or
complainant for the purpose of attending the court. Due to judicial activism, some protective
measures during the trial, like holding a trial, suppression of identity of the victim, are being
provided for victims and witnesses.

A provision like in-camera trials is very helpful at times when the testimony of the
witness/victim may be subject to the possibility of being vitiated by a hostile court
atmosphere. Suppressing the identity of a victim or witness helps to protect and secure the
privacy of the individual. The recording of evidence through video conferencing has also
been encouraged by the Supreme Court. Thus, the contribution of the Judiciary towards the
goal of victim justice in India is enormous and either can it be neglected or overlooked.

In India victimology has evolved mainly due to specific general rights, judiciary and some
laws which indicated towards the rights of the victim. Even if there is no specific code or law
made for victims,there are many legislations which protected the rights of the victims to
name a few Indian Penal Code section 195-A which makes threatening or inducing of any
person for giving false evidence  a cognizable and non bailable offence with punishment of
imprisonment of 7 year or fine or both; under code of criminal procedure of 1973 section
154(2).160, 190, 406, 439 are related to victims right; CrPC section 357 subsection (1) (3)
and (4) gives power to trial, the appellant and the revisional court to grant  award
compensation to victims; Article 14 and 21 of Indian constitution are wide enough to give
adequate protection to victims.; Article 51-A enforces a fundamental duty on citizens for
protecting and improving the natural environment; Article 41 gives public assistance to
vulnerable sections of society. Apart from this there are certain which are provided to victims
for getting timely and fair justice such as The right to attend the criminal justice, the right to
be heard,  the right to be informed,the right to be compensated, the right to be protected, the
right to restitution, the right to speedy trial and many more.

Courts have also taken some measures to minimalize delay in justice and prevent abuse of
power, they have adopted the concept of restorative justice and awarded compensation or
restitution to victims. In Bodhisattwa Gautam v Shubhra Chakraborty , the Supreme Court
held that if the court trying an offence of rape has jurisdiction to award compensation at the
final stage, the Court also had the right to award interim compensation. In the landmark case
of Rudul Shah vs. State of Bihar the Supreme Court ordered the Government of Bihar to pay
to Rudul Sah a further sum of Rs.30,000 as compensation, which according to the court was
of a “palliative nature”, in addition to a sum of Rs.5,000, in a case of illegal incarceration of
the victim for long years. From the 1980s, the court’s judgements have continuously
indicated their efforts and concern about comprehensive law on victim justice. Various
committees have been set up to look deeply into this matter. The law commission and Justice
V S Mallimath committee have stated that state should provide assistance to victims from
their own fund and look upon the victim’s right to participate in cases.
But even after these enactments, the violence of these crimes has reached an alarming level.
In 2016,  A total of 48,31,515 cognizable crimes were reported, showing an increase of 2.6%
over 2015 (47,10,676 cases). In the same year, IPC crimes have increased by 0.9% and SLL
crimes have increased by 5.4% over 2015. The percentage share of IPC was 61.6% while the
percentage share of SLL cases was 38.4% of total cognizable crimes during 2016. Uttar
Pradesh accounted for 9.5% of total IPC crimes reported in the country followed by Madhya
Pradesh (8.9%), Maharashtra (8.8%) and Kerala (8.7%).

These stats show the ground reality of the situation, awakening us from the daze that the
existing legal provisions to tackle the current situation are enough and, thus needing us to
formulate ones adapt to the current scenario.