Compensatory Jurisprudence For The Victims
To rehabilitate the convict is the essence of criminology till a decade back. In late last century the science of compensation has emerged for the welfare of the victims of crime. The life of the victims is worse than that of the criminals. Compensatory jurisprudence is for the victims.
Compensatory Jurisprudence For The Victims
‘In the modern materialistic society where economic offences have transgressed all limits of morality and humanity, the heavy dose of compensation to victims of the crime can be one effective measure in rehabilitation of the victims.’
Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer makes it clear that the criminal law in India is not victim oriented rather it is offender oriented and the sufferings of victim, often immeasurable, are entirely overlooked in misplaced sympathy for the criminal. Though our modern criminal law is designed to punish as well as to reform the criminals, yet it overlooks the byproduct of crime i.e., victim. It was held in numerous Supreme Court decisions that “ Right to life is one of the basic human rights. It is guaranteed to every person by Article 21 of the Constitution of India and not even the state has the authority to violate that Right. A prisoner, be he a convict or undertrial or a detenu, does not cease to be a human being. Even when lodged in the jail, he continues to enjoy all his Fundamental Rights including the Right to life guaranteed to him under the Constitution. On being convicted of crime and deprived of their liberty in accordance with the procedure established by law, prisoners still retain the residue of constitutional rights… this would indicate that so far as Fundamental Rights and Human Rights or human dignity are concerned, the law has marched ahead like a Pegasus but the government attitude continues to be conservative and it tries to defend its action or the tortuous action of its officers by raising the plea of immunity for sovereign acts or acts of State, which must fail.” In India the accused has been treated as a privileged person. He gets all possible help from all the corners of the country. Not only he gets defence counsel at the costs of the state at the time of trial but he is also benefited after conviction. Due to much more vigilant NGO’s and Human Rights Organizations, the after care reformative and rehabilitative programmes for the accused are also at the rise. Thus, the punishment can be considered more as treatment, rehabilitation, correction and resocialisation through probation, parole and after care community services.
Thus, the lack of victim-oriented jurisprudence is the main cause of deterioration of the conditions of victims and their family members.
Compensation to the Victims of Crime
The reactions to crime have been different at different stages of human civilization. There are number of theories available pertaining to ‘Reaction to crime’. Important among these theories are Retribution theory, Utilitarian theory, Deterrent theory etc. In common, every theory provides justification for punishment. We can summarise the objects of punishment as:
1. partly of making example of the criminal;
2. partly of deterring the criminal from repeating the same act;
3. partly of reforming the criminal by eradicating the evil will; and
4. partly of satisfying society’s feeling of vengeance which the act is supposed to evoke.
The law in the early stages of civilization was to compensate the victim and not to punish the offender. Narada was the first to recommend compensation to the victims by the offender in order to expiate his sins. “If we go back to the origin of criminal law, we see that the victim and his family occupy a central position: it is the victim and his family who have the right to request revenge or penitence. However, over the centuries, with the evolution of the state and the organization of state prosecution the role of the victim has changed: from his central position the victim has been shifted to a marginal one.”
The basic problem one has to face while dealing with the compensation aspect of the crime is, ‘Is compensation for the Damage caused by Crime an objective of the Criminal Process’? A decision on this point is especially important when the judge imposes on the offender various financial obligations like court costs, fines, and compensation to the victim. Which of these obligations should take precedence over others if the offender’s financial means are insufficient to satisfy all of them? One more important problem that arises is the financial background of the offenders because often they tend to be poor. If the offender has committed an economic offence then he has the capacity to compensate, otherwise it is very difficult for the victim to get sufficient proportion of compensation.
The case of restitution to victims of crime rested primarily on two obligations: an obligation of the criminal who inflicted the harm against person or property and an obligation of the state, which failed to protect the victim. The second obligation is much more important because it is the duty of the state to provide effective security against the crime.
In India, the trend in this direction is quite good now. The dictum that ‘ King can do no wrong’ is in the wane. Modern welfare society, has taken the responsibility to protect its citizens from crime. That is why the punishment aspect solely rests with the state. Though retribution is having subordinate position in Indian legal system yet it is trying hard to get its feet moving. In last few decades retribution aspect has found its way in to the mainstream of criminal law.
Concept of Victimology
“The word Victimology is a new coinage and has gained considerable importance due to the untiring work of Miss Margaret Fry of the John Howard Association of England, Benjamin Mendelsohn, who in 1937 developed a scientific method for the study of the criminal act which utilized bio-psycho-social data on the criminal, on the victim and on the witnesses bystanders, and the World Society of Victimology having been himself the victim of discrimination, Mendelsohn became interested in the victim and in his/hers relationship with the criminal.” Schafer defines Victimology as “the study of criminal victim relationship”. Drapin and Viano define it as “that branch of criminology which primarily studies the victim of crime and every thing that is concerned with such a victim”. In the words of Fattah, “ while studying biological, sociological, psychological, and criminological details about the victim-victimology brings into focus the victim-offender relationship and role played by victim.” The 7th United Nations Congress on Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders, came out with a declaration of basic principles of Justice of Victims of crime and abuse of power, which was later adopted by the U.N. General Assembly. In the declaration, the U.N. defined the “Victims of Crime” as follows:
1. “Victims” means 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 Member States, including those laws prescribing criminal abuse of power.
2. A person may be considered a victim, under this Declaration, regardless of whether the perpetrator is identified, apprehended, prosecuted or convicted and regardless of the familial relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. The term “victim” also includes, where appropriate, the immediate family or dependants of the direct victim and persons who have suffered harm in intervening to assist victims in distress or to prevent victimization.
It is, however, the work of contemporary Hans Von Hentig, The criminal and his Victim (1948), which was regarded as seminal text in developing victim studies. Wolfgang’s classic study of 1958 was the first study, which test the ideas of Von Hentig. He in his remarkable work concluded that some crime was victim- precipitated, inspired many subsequent studies replicating his approach. “The most controversial application of Wolfgang’s model of victim precipitation is Amir’s Patterns of Forcible Rape (1971). Amir analysed 646 forcible rapes recorded by the police in Philadelphia and concluded that 19 percent were victim-precipitated… his definition of precipitation is broad and vague, encompassing all those instances in which ‘victim actually or so it was interpreted by the offender—agreed to sexual relations but retracted…or did not resist strongly enough when the suggestion was made by the offender. The term also applies to cases in which the victim enters vulnerable situations charged sexually”. This shift, was vehemently criticized everywhere.
The demand of modern criminal justice system is to provide restorative justice to the victims of the crime. It’s a different way of thinking about the crime. It is repairing the harm done to victims and reducing future harm by preventing crime. “Restorative justice is a process whereby all the parties with a stake in a particular offense (offence) come together to resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offense and its implications for the future.” “What constitutes appropriate reparation is decided through a process of negotiation involving not only the offender and the victim but also the respective families and social networks who have also been harmed by the criminal act. The ultimate aim of restorative justice is one of healing. Through receiving appropriate reparation, the harm done to the victim can be redressed; by making good the damage caused, the offender can be reconciled with the victim and reintegrated back into his/her social and familial net works; and through such reconciliation and reintegration, community harmony can be restored.”
There are number of techniques available all over the world which primarily consists of mediation between the victim of the crime and the offender. Victim Offender Mediation (VOM) model was originated in 1976 in Canada. This model consists of Mediator, Victim and Offender. In the meeting, both the offender and the victim, in the presence of a trained mediator, talk to each other about the offence, the effect of the offence on their lives, and their feelings about it. They can create their own appropriate mutual agreement to repair any damages that occurred as a result of the offence.
Family Group Conferences: This model was originated in New Zealand, in 1991. This group consists of number of members such as Coordinator, Victim, Offender their family and friends, Police, N.G.Os etc.
In Australia, the above method of New Zealand was adopted in a more modified way. They adopted this model on first time offenders, along with an improved diversionary policy. It incorporated Reintegrative Shaming theory.
Internationally, two different offshoots came from the Family Group Conferences theory. One is Family Empowerment Model, which is based on the belief that children and families have a right to be involved in making decisions, which particularly affect their after-lives. This model further talks of the positive effect of the families over young people’s lives. This approach is somehow different from the earlier researches as well as approaches where decision-making was in the hands of the professionals such as social workers, police officers, magistrates, judges etc. In this model the coordinator comes out from the process of agreement between the offender and his/her family members with that of the victim and his/her family members. The amount of reparation is agreed between the parties accordingly. Only after all this, coordinator is called back to participate in the final stage of the conference.
The second model is Offender Restoration Model, which is based upon the Family Group Conferences Theory. In this model the mediator/coordinator/moderator/facilitator remains present throughout the proceedings.
Circles, Circle Sentencing Model was originated in Canada. “In 1991, Judge Barry Stuart of the Yukon Territorial court introduced the sentencing circle as a means of sharing the justice process with the Community.” These Circles, such as, Hollow Water First Nations Community Holistic Healing Circle, led to the development of healing circles as a way of dealing with the harm created by the offender, of healing the victim and of restoring the community.
Even in India, right from the ancient times, Panchayat model is working. This model worked with the help of the village head, supported by the other participants together with the victim, offender and their family members. The main aim of the village panchayats is to restore the victims of the crime. The village people generally do not want the interference of the police.
In short, we can say that the victim-oriented studies of 20th century remarkably open a new chapter in criminology.
Problems of the Victims
Victims of the crime face multifarious problems. Economic strain to the family is caused due to the death of the only earning member of the family. Sometimes physical disability caused by victimization, causes inferiority complex in the victim, which lead to frustration and sometimes to suicide. Victims of rape have to face the social stigma of the society as well. The impact of victimization is different from victim to victim. Now we shall discuss the Compensation laws in India.
Victim Compensation Laws in India
In addition to the conviction, under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, 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. According to Sub-section (1) of Section 357, “ When a Court imposes a sentence of fine or a sentence (including a sentence of death) of which fine forms a part, the Court may, when passing judgment, order the whole or any part of the fine recovered to be applied –
(a) in defraying the expenses properly incurred in the prosecution;
(b) in the payment of any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused by the offence, when compensation is, in the opinion of the Court, recoverable by such person in a Civil Court;
(c) when any person is convicted of any offence for having caused the death of another person or of having abetted the commission of such an offence, in paying compensation to the persons who are, under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, entitled to recover damages from the person sentenced for the loss resulting to them from such death;
(d) when any person is convicted of any offence which includes theft, criminal misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, or cheating, or of having dishonestly received or retained, or of having voluntarily assisted in disposing of, stolen property knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen, in compensating any bona fide purchaser of such property for the loss of the same if such property is restored to the possession of the person entitled thereto.
According to Sub-section (3) of Section 357 when a court imposes a sentence,
of which fine does not form a part, the Court may, when passing judgment, order the accused person to pay, by way of compensation, such amount as may be specified in the order to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused person has been so sentenced.
According to Section 358 (1) of Cr.P.C., whenever any person causes a police officer to arrest another person, if it appears to the Magistrate by whom the case is heard that there was no sufficient ground for causing such arrest, the Magistrate may award such compensation, not exceeding one hundred rupees, to be paid by the person so causing the arrest to the person so arrested, for his loss of time and expenses in the matter, as the Magistrate thinks fit.
Further, according to sub-section (2) of section 358 of Cr.P.C., In such cases, if more persons than one are arrested, the magistrate may, in like manner, award to each of them such compensation, not exceeding one hundred rupees, as such Magistrate thinks fit.
Section 358 (3) of Cr.P.C. further states that all compensation awarded under this section may be recovered as if it were a fine, and, if it cannot be so recovered the person by whom it is payable shall be sentenced to simple imprisonment for such term not exceeding thirty days as the Magistrate directs, unless such sum is sooner paid.
Under Section 359 (1) of Cr.P.C. whenever any complaint of a non-cognizable offence is made to a Court, the court, if it convicts the accused, may, in addition to the penalty imposed upon him, order him to pay to the complainant, in whole or in part, the cost incurred by him in the prosecution, and may further order that in default of payment, the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period not exceeding thirty days and such costs may include any expenses incurred in respect of process fees, witnesses and pleader’s fees which the court may consider reasonable.
Section 5 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 state that the court directing the release of an offender under Section 3 or Section 4, may, if it thinks fit, make at the same time a further order directing him to pay –
(a) such compensation as the court thinks reasonable for loss or injury caused to any person by the commission of the offence; and
(b) such costs of the proceedings as the court thinks reasonable.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is one among the other compensatory legislations, which provides compensation to the victims of the offence.
“Nevertheless, the problem in India is not that there are not enough laws. There are, a number of statutory laws and it is just as well, because laws are the basis, on which comprehensive victim assistance may be built. Our problems in India are three-fold:
(i) To create awareness among potential victims to recognize victimization, with a view of preventing it and seeking proper assistance and remedy when it occurs.
(ii) To sensitise the courts, the police, the medical and welfare services, including non- official agencies, about the needs of victims and an approach towards satisfying them, and
(iii) To organize victim assistance services on a wider front and more comprehensively than currently exists.”
Judicial jurisprudence towards compensation law in India
In Rudal Sah v. State of Bihar Supreme Court through Chief Justice Chandrachud held, “ 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. 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.
In Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir , Bhim Singh was a member of the Legislative Assembly. He was arrested while on his way to attend a meeting of the Assembly. Due to this arrest he was deprived of his constitutional right to attend the Assembly session. Justice Chinnappa Reddy while speaking for the court held, “when a person comes to us with the complaint that he has been arrested and imprisoned with mischievous or malicious intent and that his constitutional and legal rights were invaded, the mischief or malice and the invasion may not be washed away or wished away by his being set free. In appropriate cases we have the jurisdiction to compensate the victim by awarding suitable monetary compensation. We consider this as an appropriate case.” Supreme Court awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and ordered the same to be paid within two months.
In Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty Supreme Court provide compensation to the victim under such conditions even when the accused is not convicted. It further emphasized that when a court trying a rape case has the jurisdiction to award compensation in the final stage, there is no reason to deny the court the right to award interim compensation.
In Dr. Jacob George v. State of Kerala the Apex Court enhanced the fine imposed by the High Court, to Rs. one lakh from Rs. 1,000/- to be paid to the minor son of the deceased. Not only this, Court also modified the sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment to that of two months imprisonment, which convict had already undergone. The main aim of the criminal justice system is to provide compensation to the victims of crime.
In State of Maharashtra v. Christian Community Welfare Council of India Justice N. Santosh Hegde in paragraph 10 of the judgment while answering the question whether the compensation paid by the State can be recovered from the officers or not held that it will depend on the fact whether the alleged misdeed by the officer concerned is committed in the course of the discharge of his lawful duties, beyond or in excess of the same which will have to be determined in a proper enquiry… If it is found that the appellant officers did cause the death of the deceased and the same is not in the performance of their official duty or in excess of the same then they cannot escape the liability.
In Mangilal v. State of M.P. Supreme Court, in a landmark Judgment, held that the power of the court to award compensation to victims under Section 357 of Cr. P.C., is not ancillary to other sentences but is in addition thereto. Sub-Section (1) of Section 357 deals with a situation when a court imposes a fine or a sentence (including sentence of death) of which fine also forms a part. It confers a discretion on the court to order as to the how the whole or any part of fine recovered is to be applied. If no fine is imposed, sub-section (1) of section 357 is that in the former case, the imposition of fine is the basic and essential requirement, while in the latter even in the absence thereof empower the court to direct payment of compensation. Such power is available to be exercised by an Appellant Court or by the High Court or Court of Session when exercising revisional powers. Here trial Court not awarded any compensation. High Court granted.
Court further held, “ an opportunity of hearing has to be granted before granted payment of compensation under Section 357 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Thus, is Appellate Court intends to award compensation, it must grant an opportunity of hearing so that the relevant aspects like the need to award compensation, capacity of the accused to pay and several other relevant factors can be taken note of… Even if a statue is silent and there are no positive words in the Act, or the Rules made there under, there could nothing wrong in spelling out the need to hear the parties whose rights and interest are likely to be affected by the orders that may be passed, and making it a requirement to follow a fair procedure before taking a decision, unless the statue provides otherwise. The Principles of Natural Justice must be read into unoccupied interstice of the statue, unless there is a clear mandate to the contrary. No form or procedure should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigant’s defence or stand. Even in the absence of a provision in procedural laws, power inheres in every Tribunal/ Court of a judicial or quasi-judicial character, to adopt modalities necessary to achieve requirements of natural justice and fair play to ensure better and proper discharge of their duties. Procedure is mainly grounded on the Principles of Natural Justice irrespective of he extent of its application by express provision in that regard in a given situation. It has always been a cherished principle. Where the statue is silent about the observance of the Principles of Natural Justice such statutory silence is taken to imply comply with the Principles of Natural Justice where substantial rights of parties are considerably affected. The application of Natural Justice becomes presumptive, unless words of statue or necessary intendment. Its aim is to secure justice or to prevent miscarriage of justice. Principles of Natural Justice do not supplant the law, but supplement it. These rules operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. They are a means to an end and not an end in themselves.”
In R. Gandhi v. Union of India Madras High Court, has directed the State Government to pay Rs. 33,19,033/- as compensation, as recommended by Coimbatore District Collector to those families of Sikhs and others in Coimbatore, who were the victims of arson and rioting in the wake of the assassination of the former Prime Minister. Speaking for the court, Justice S.A. Kader said, “ Legally and morally by all canons of fair-play, by all principles of justice, equity and good conscience, the second respondent State of Tamil Nadu is bound to pay compensation to victims as assessed and recommended by this senior official.”
In another landmark judgment, Andhra Pradesh High Court awarded Rs.1,44,000/- as damages against the State Government for the death of a person in judicial custody. In this case, the defence by the State that the prisoner was put in jail in exercise of sovereign function, and therefore, the state was under no obligation to pay compensation was rejected. It was held that concept of sovereign power is not an exception to the right to freedom of life and the constitutional guarantee of right to live overrides the theory of immunity of State action.
In D.K.Basu v. State of West Bengal Supreme Court observed: “ It is now a well accepted preposition in most of the jurisdiction, that the monetary and pecuniary compensation is an appropriate and indeed an effective and sometimes perhaps the only suitable remedy for the redressal of the established infringement of the Fundamental Right to life of a citizen by the public servants. The State is vicariously liable to which the defence of sovereign immunity is not available and the citizen must receive the amount of compensation from the State, which shall have the right to be indemnified from the wrongdoer.
Though the Supreme Court clearly directed all trial courts to exercise the power of awarding compensation to victims of crime under Section 357 Cr.P.C. liberally, so as to meet the ends of justice yet, trial court is reluctant to use this discretion more regularly.
Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Keshav Bahadur and others held that Discretion in general, is the discernment of what is right and proper. It denotes knowledge and prudence, that discernment which enables a person to judge critically of what is correct and proper united with caution; nice discernment, and judgment directed by circumspection; deliberate judgment; soundness of judgment; a science or understanding to discern between falsity and truth, between wrong and right, between shadow and substance, between equity and colorable glosses and pretences, and not to do according to the will and private affections of persons. When it is said that something is to be done within the discretion of the authorities, that something is to be done according to the rules of reason and justice, not according to private opinion; according to law and not humour. It is to be not arbitrary, vague, and fanciful, but legal and regular. And it must be exercised within the limit, to which an honest man, competent to the discharge of his office ought to confine himself. The word “discretion” standing single and unsupported by circumstances signifies exercise of judgment, skill or wisdom as distinguished from folly, unthinking or haste; evidently therefore a discretion cannot be arbitrary but must be a result of judicial thinking. The word in itself implies vigilant circumspection and care; therefore where the legislature concedes discretion it also imposes a heavy responsibility.
Now the main aim of criminology is certainly not confined to the sphere of punishing the offenders, but it is more ‘victims’ oriented. Till 19th century, criminal law was paying more attention to the individual and less to the group. Now this trend is somehow applied over the victim-oriented studies. Due to the advent of not only white-collar crimes and corporate crimes but also due to the absolution of state immunity, the concept of Victimology got accelerated.
“It is worthwhile to mention here the draft of the U.N. Social Council, which states what type of harm, is to be considered for compensation. The types of harm, injury, loss or damage caused by wrongful conduct should include: “ the loss of life or of support, impairment of health including physical or psychological injury, pain and suffering both physical and mental, loss of liberty, loss of income or livelihood, loss of property or damage to it which is not subject to restitution and deprivation of the use of property. Due account must also be taken of the special damages or expenses and costs reasonably incurred by the victim or, where appropriate, by the victim’s family dependents or heirs, which resulted from the victimization including medical costs, transportation costs, funeral and burial costs, legal costs, treatment and rehabilitation costs and similar and related costs and expenses”.”
The compensation as a rehabilitative technique can be very useful against the nefarious, brutal and inhuman practices of removing kidneys of hapless and helpless persons for a pittance. For economic offences, the most we can do is to provide heavy compensation to the victims of such offences. In India, the stream of scams continues to unfold every now and again, and the prevailing corruption has assumed wide-ranging dimensions. The regular emergence of new and highly complicated socio-economic offences needs some more remedial measures. Compensation presently is the best option available. The Greek philosopher “Aristotle” since long observed that poverty endangers revolution and crimes originate from poverty. The emergence of so many economic offences lead to the growth of not only poverty but though it is an irony that the implication of the statutory laws such as Sections 357- 359 of the Cr. PC are yet to be implemented whole-heartedly. If we further quote UN Guidelines: “ It shall be the responsibility of the State, as the embodiment of justice, to provide for procedure mechanisms and institutions through which determination may be made as to whether the alleged conduct, violations harm, injury, losses or damage have been committed or suffered, as the means and the amount of redress or sanctions as a result thereof that are appropriate and that ensures the enforcement and implementation of such determination.”
The strategy adopted presently towards Victimology requires clarity. Should we continue with the provisions we have now or should look for a comprehensive concept of criminal policy, which deals particularly from victim’s perspective. The compensation though never be the solution but still some thing is their to console the victim.
© Copyright Reserved with the author
*Jasper Vikas, Advocate, Delhi High Court, Pursuing LL.M from Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Res. 69, Antriksha Apartments, H-3, Vikas Puri, New Delhi – 110018, Office G-2/2, Ground Floor, Sector-16, Rohini, New Delhi-110085, (M) 9818821498
1. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy AIR 2000 S.C. 2083
2. Huda, Shamsul, Principles of the Law of Crimes, p.
3. Madlener, Kurt, Awarding Damages to the Victims of Crime, p. 271.
4. Singh, S.P., Paul C. Friday (ed.) Global perspectives in Victimology. p. 171.
5. Zedner, Lucia, Victims, p. 1209.
6. Marshall, T., Restorative Justice: An Overview, (1999), London: Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate.
7. Wundersitz, J. and Hetzel, S. (1996) Family conferencing for Young Offenders: The South Australian Experience.
8. Bazemore, G., The “Community” in community Justice: Issues, Themes, and questions for the new Neighborhood Sanctioning Methods., ( 1999 ).
9. Makkar, S.P.Singh, Friday, Paul, C., (ed) Global Perspectives in Victimology, p. 174-175.
10. AIR, 1983 SC.
11. Mallappa, 1977 Cr. LJ 1856 (Kant).
12. Morgan, (1909) 36 Cal 302.
13. 1978 Cr LJ 1598: AIR 1978 SC 1525.
14. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 15th Edition, 2002, p. 547.
15. Sebastian v. State of Kerala, 1992 Cr. LJ 3642 (Ker).
16. AIR 1995 SC 1935: 1995 Cr LJ 3219.
17. M. Hongary v. Union Of India, AIR 1984 SC 1026.
18. AIR 1986 SC 494.
19. AIR 1996 1 SCC 450.
20. AIR 1994 3 SCC 430.
21. 2003) 8 SCC 546.
22. 2004) 2 SCC. 447.
23. AIR 1989 Mad. 205.
24. C.Ramakonda Reddy v. State, AIR 1989 A.P. 235.
25. AIR 1997 SC 610.
26. Hari Shankar v. Sukhbir Singh, AIR 1988 SC. 2127.
27. 2004 1 ACE 496.
28. Makkar, S.P.Singh, Friday, Paul, C., (ed) Global Perspectives in Victimology, p. 178.
29. Ibid, p 178-179.