Compensation To Victims
Compensation To Victims
The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the
enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III is guaranteed, that is to say, the
right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 for the enforcement of any of
the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution is itself a fundamental right.
That has, however, not prevented the courts in Ireland from developing remedies,
including the award of damages, not only against individuals guilty of
infringement, but also against the State itself.
Article 32(1) provides for the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate
proceedings for the enforcement of the fundamental rights. The Supreme Court
under Article 32(2) is free to devise any procedure for the enforcement of
fundamental right and it has the power to issue any process necessary in a given
case. In view of this constitutional provision, the Supreme Court may even give
remedial assistance, which may include compensation in appropriate cases.
The penologist recognized that adequate compensation to the victims from the
accused or alternatively from the state is objective of the science of victimology
which is gaining ground and deserves attention.
Justice requires that a person who has suffered must be compensated. Basically the
accused is responsible for the harm caused to the victim.
We have five statutes, under which compensation may be awarded to the victims
of crime.
The law makers made provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 under
Section 357(3) to enable the Courts to award any amount of compensation to the
victims of a crime. Not only this, the lower courts were asked and advised to
exercise the power of awarding compensation to the victims of offences in such a
liberal way that the victims may not have to rush to the civil courts.
The renaissance of the doctrine of natural rights in the form of human rights across
the globe is a great development in the jurisprudential field in the contemporary
era. A host of international covenants on human rights and the concern for
effective implementation of them are radical and revolutionary steps towards the
guarantee of liberty, equality and justice. Though the concept is new, the content is
not and these rights have been recognised since ages and have become part of the
constitutional mechanism of several countries. India recognised these rights under
Part III of the Constitution providing remedies for enforcement of such rights.
Article 32(1) provides for the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate
proceedings for the enforcement of the fundamental rights. The Supreme Court
under Article 32(2) is free to devise any procedure for the enforcement of
fundamental right and it has the power to issue any process necessary in a given
case. In view of this constitutional provision, the Supreme Court may even give
remedial assistance, which may include compensation in appropriate cases.
Why should the court not be prepared to forge new tools and devise new remedies
for the purpose of vindicating the most precious of the precious fundamental right
to life and personal liberty.
In Sant Bir v. State of Bihar (1982) the question of compensating the victim of the
lawlessness of the State was left open.
In Veena Sethi v. State of Bihar (1982) also the Court observed that the question
would still remain to be considered whether the petitioners are entitled to
compensation from the State Government for the contravention of the right
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
In the light of the views expressed by the Court in the above cases it can be said
that the Court had shown its concern for the protection of right to life and liberty
against the lawlessness of the State but did not actually grant any compensation to
the victims.
The seed of compensation for the infraction of the rights implicit in Article 21 was
first sowed in Khatri, Sant Bir and Veena Sethi, which sprouted with such a
vigorous growth that it finally enabled the Court to hold that the State is liable to
pay compensation.
In this case the SC held that Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and
liberty will be denuded of its significant content if the power of this court were
limited to passing orders of release from illegal detention. One of the telling ways
in which the violation of that right can reasonably be prevented and due
compliance with the mandate of Article 21 secured is to mulct its violators in the
payment of monetary compensation.
There must be direct and proximate nexus between the complaint and the arrest for
the award of compensation under sec. 358 of the Cr. P.C. Any person is entitled to
compensation for the loss or injury caused by the offence, and it includes the wife,
husband, parent and child of the deceased victim.
In Sarwan Singh's case court held that in awarding such compensation, the court is
to take into consideration various factors such as capacity of the accused to pay,
the nature of the crime, the nature of the injury suffered and other relevant factors.
Power to award compensation to victims should be liberally exercised by courts to
meet the ends of justice.
In addition to the conviction; the court may order the accused to pay some amount
by way of compensation to the victim who has suffered by the action of accused. It
is not alternative to but in addition thereto. The payment of compensation must be
reasonable.
The quantum of compensation depends upon facts, circumstances, the nature of the
crime, the justness of the claim of the victim and the capacity of the accused to
pay.
If there are more than one accused, quantum may be divided equally unless their
capacity to pay varies considerably. Reasonable period for payment of
compensation, if necessary by instalment, may be given.
In a certain case the Court held that where the amount fixed was repulsively low so
as to make it a mockery of the sentence, it would be enhanced; the financial
capacity of the accused, enormity of the offence, extent of damage caused to the
victim, are the relevant considerations in fixing up the amount.
The court in Balraj v. State of U.P. (1994) held that the power to award
compensation under section 357 (3) is not ancillary to other sentences but it is in
addition thereto.
The compensation for illegal detention is the area, which unearthed new doctrines
pertaining to the compensation laws in India. In yet another case, two women filed
a writ of habeas corpus to produce two persons (their husbands) who were found
missing. The authorities failed to produce them. The Court concluded, on the basis
of material placed before it, that the two persons 'must have met unnatural deaths,
and that prima facie they would be offences of murder. The Supreme Court
directed the respondents to pay Rs. 1, 00, 000/- to each of the wives of the missing
persons.
The court has also granted monetary compensation to victims of custodial violence
in many cases. In a landmark judgment of Nilabati Behra vs. state of Orissa (1993)
case the apex court awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the mother of
deceased who died in police custody due to torture. In D.K. Basu v. State of West
Bengal (1997) the Apex court held that compensation can be granted under the
public law by the Supreme Court and High Court in addition to private law remedy
for tortuous action and punishment to wrong doer under criminal law for
established breach of fundamental rights.
ANALYSIS OF COMPENSATION:
When a crime is committed against a person, the victim loses out a lot apart from
incurring damages and injuries. The work of a judiciary should not only be to
punish the guilty but also compensate the victim as even if the accused is punished,
the victims loss is not compensated. The compensation given should at least try to
put the victim in a state in which he was before. It is not like victims of crime can
never ask for compensation as such a prayer is available under civil laws, but filing
two different suits for the same offence in two different courts. The proceedings
for one suit are most of the times is agonizing, that such a procedure of filing
different suits only gives the victim a second traumatisation.
In the Indian society of the 21st century, many people want their brides to be pure
virgins. A victim of rape in such cases not only loses out on the opportunity to
marry into an otherwise decent family but is also discriminated upon for no fault of
hers. It is often said that the most prised possession of a woman is her dignity and
respect. In the society where people still have an old mindset, the life of such a
woman only degrades. It only makes sense to compensate such a victim well apart
from punishing the accused. Mental shock, loss of income and cost of litigation
should be taken into consideration when coming out with compensation and the
Courts should hence compensate the victims more frequently.
Thus, compensation is not only required but is in fact a very important aspect of
even criminal law and the courts should not use this sparingly but a little liberally.
Of course they should be careful of not awarding too high a compensation and
hence should be careful.