REALIZATION OF VICTIM JUSTICE THROUGH EFFECTIVE PROSECUTION- AN INDIAN PERSPECTIVE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29121/shodhkosh.v4.i1.2023.2886Keywords:
Victims’ Rights, Fair Trial, Fair Prosecution, Public Prosecutor, Victim’S Counsel, Criminal Justice SystemAbstract [English]
Despite the Human Rights discourse resulting in the recognition of a ‘positive obligation’ upon the State to provide a mechanism using substantive and procedural measures, to ensure the victim’s right to justice, the adversarial criminal justice system is not the ideal place where the victim’s right to fair trial may be realized. Trends show that there is more receptibility to the idea of granting the ‘service rights’ to the victim of crime within the criminal justice system but still, there is a reluctance to grant the victim a status as a party in the criminal justice process. This article argues that the victim’s right to justice, inclusive of the right to a fair trial, is recognized in the Indian criminal justice system but is not effectively translating into implementation. This article looks into the reasons why the public nature of the criminal trial and the structural compulsions do not leave much scope for a meaningful role that the victim might espouse for realizing his right to a fair trial. It is also trying to find out to what extent the Indian Criminal Justice System has measured up to fulfilling the State’s Obligations towards fair trial rights of the victims of crime.
References
The Constitution of India, art. 39-A; art. 51 (c).
Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari, “Human Rights of Victims”, 6 SCC J-11(2007).
Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 275, para 49.
Sandeep Rammilan Shukla v. The State of Maharashtra, 2008 SCC OnLine Bom 996, para 3.
Mah L J 49.
Jonathan Doak, Victims’ Rights, Human Rights and Criminal Justice, Reconceiving the Role of Third Parties 159 (Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, Oregon, 2008).
Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (1934) available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/291/97.
UN General Assembly Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power 1985, A/RES/40/34 (November 29, 1985) available at http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/40/a40r034.htm
Id. at “4. Victims should be treated with compassion and respect for their dignity. They are entitled to access to the mechanisms of justice and to prompt redress, as provided for by national legislation, for the harm that they have suffered.”
Id. at “6. The responsiveness of judicial and administrative processes to the needs of victims should be facilitated by: (b) Allowing the views and concerns of victims to be presented and considered at appropriate stages of the proceedings where their personal interests are affected, without prejudice to the accused and consistent with the relevant national criminal justice system.”
(2003) 4 SCC 601.
Id. at para 13.
Mohamed Maraikkayar v. The Director General of Police, 2014 SCC OnLine Mad 9759, para 7; Ram Padarath Singh v. The State of Bihar 2014 SCC OnLine Pat 6564.
Ram Padarath Singh v. The State of Bihar, 2014 SCC OnLine Pat 6564.
(2004) 4 SCC 158.
Id. at para 36.
(2013) 14 SCC 461, para 17.14.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, sec. 311, provides for the power of the court to summon material witnesses.
SCC OnLine SC 799.
Id. at para 11.
Id. at para 29 (v).
The Constitution of India, art. 22 (1).
(2019) 14 SCC 615, para 9.
Vijay Valia v. State of Maharashtra, 1987 Mah L J 49, para 9.
Government of India, “Report of the Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System” (Ministry of Home Affairs, 2003), recommendation 6 at 270-271.
Vijay Valia v. State of Maharashtra, 1987 Mah L J 49; K. V. Shiva Reddy v. State of Karnataka 2005 SCC OnLine Kar 260.
K. V. Shiva Reddy v. State of Karnataka 2005 SCC OnLine Kar 260, para 31.
Vijay Valia v. State of Maharashtra, 1987 Mah L J 49.
Id. at para 23.
Sunil Kumar Pal v. Phota Sheikh, (1984) 4 SCC 533, para 9 & 10.
SCC OnLine Kar 260.
US, Department of Justice, The President’s Task Force on Victims of Crime, Final Report, 11-18 (1982).
Jonathan Doak, “Victims’ Rights in Criminal Trials: Prospects for Participation” 32 (2), Journal of Law and Society, 294-316 (2005).
Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935).
AIR 1959 AP 659.
Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand, 1999 SCC OnLine SC 824, para 13.
(2020) 2 SCC 474.
Id. at para 11.2.
Ibid.
A. Ashworth, “What Victims of Crime Deserve”, paper presented to the Fulbright Commission on Penal Theory and Penal Practice, University of Stirling, September 1992, as cited by M. Cavadino and J. Dignan “Towards a Framework for Conceptualising and Evaluating Models of Criminal Justice from a Victim’s Perspective” 4 (3) International Rev. of Victimology 153 (1996).
M. Cavadino and J. Dignan “Towards a Framework for Conceptualising and Evaluating Models of Criminal Justice from a Victim’s Perspective” 4 (3) International Rev. of Victimology 155 (1996). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/026975809600400301
D. Weisstub, “Victims of Crime in the Criminal Justice System” in E. Fattah (ed.) From Crime Policy to Victim Policy, 205, (Palgrave Macmillan, London 1986). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-08305-3_10
Compounding of offences u/sec 320 CrPC, Sec.357 CrPC relating to compensation, determination of fine based on medical expenses for the acid attack and rape victim are good example for this blurring of the lines.
S. Thaman, “Europe’s New Jury Systems: The Cases of Spain and Russia” 62 Law & Contemporary Problems 233, 244 (1999) as cited in Jonathan Doak, “Victims’ Rights in Criminal Trials: Prospects for Participation by”32 (2) Journal of Law and Society 298 (2005).
Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand, 1999 SCC OnLine SC 824, para 13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj/leu/2401362
United Nations, Offenders and Victims: Accountability and Fairneess in the Criminal Justice Process, UN Doc A/ CONF. 187/8 (December 15, 1999), para 21.
L.Ellison, The Adversarial Process and the Vulnerable Witness, 53-4, Oxford (2001). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299097.001.0001
William Pizzi, Trials without Truth 197 (1999) as cited in Jonathan Doak, “Victims’ Rights in Criminal Trials: Prospects for Participation” 32 (2) Journal of Law and Society 298 (2005).
R v. Banks, (1916) 2 K.B. 621. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.2.2914.621
L.E. Ellison, A comparative study of Rape Trials in Adversarial and Inquisitorial Criminal Justice Systems (1997) 281-4 (unpublished PhD thesis, University of Leeds) as cited in Jonathan Doak, “Victims’ Rights in Criminal Trials: Prospects for Participation” 32 (2) Journal of Law and Society 306 (2005).
J. Shapland, J. willmore et al., Victims in the Criminal Justice System, Gower 1985; Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, “Victims’ and Witnesses’ views on their Treatment in the Criminal Justice System” (Belfast, Northern Ireland Office 2004) as cited in Jonathan Doak, “Victims’ Rights in Criminal Trials: Prospects for Participation” 32 (2) Journal of Law and Society 306 (2005).
Mina Lalita Baruwa v. State of Orissa and Others, (2013) 16 SCC 173, at 19.
Supra note 3.
Government of India, “Report of the Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System” (Ministry of Home Affairs, 2003), Para 2.2 at page 23.
Rekha Murarka v. State of West Bengal, (2020) 2 SCC 474, para 11.3.
State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai, (2014) 5 SCC 108, para 17.
(1984) 4 SCC 533.
SCC OnLine Kar 260.
Id. at para 40.
Mahammad Ali v. State of Assam, 2017 SCC OnLine Gau 867, para 9.
Supra note 38 at para 11.3.
Ibid.
Id. at para 11.4.
Inserted by Act 5 of 2009.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s. 225.
Id.,s. 301.
Id., s. 302.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s. 311.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s. 165.
SCC OnLine Gau 867.
Id. at para 9.
Supra note 38.
Id. at para 11.1.
Id. at para 11.2.
Id. at para 11.3 & 11.4.
Id. at para 11.4.
Id. at para 11.4 & 11.5.
Id. at para 11.5.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Dr. Mukul Raizada
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
With the licence CC-BY, authors retain the copyright, allowing anyone to download, reuse, re-print, modify, distribute, and/or copy their contribution. The work must be properly attributed to its author.
It is not necessary to ask for further permission from the author or journal board.
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
