Please click the link to read the Report on the Criminal Justice System as suggested by Justice Malimath Committee in 2003. This report highlights the lacunae in the criminal Justice system in India and has suggestted important recommendations. These recommendations assume significance when the discussion on the Ruchika case is being discussed across the country.
When the Ruchika Case has come as a shocker and highlighted the failure of the law for the welfare and protection of Victims it is time to visit the Report of Malimath committee on Criminal Justice System. There are some good suggestions which need to be implemented for the welfare of Victims.
FROM THE MALIMATH COMMITTEE REPORT ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN INDIA (March 2003)
6.1 Referring to the state of criminal justice in India today, the Government Notification constituting the Criminal Justice Reforms committee observed :
… … ..People by and large have lost confidence in the Criminal Justice System … .. Victims feel ignored and are crying for attention and justice … .. there is need for developing a cohesive system, in which, all parts work in co-ordination to achieve the common goal.
6.2 Very early in the deliberations of the Committee, it was recognized that victims do not get at present the legal rights and protection they deserve to play their just role in criminal proceedings which tend to result in disinterestedness in the proceedings and consequent distortions in criminal justice administration. In every interaction the Committee had with the police, the Judges, the prosecution and defense lawyers, jail officials and the general public, this concern for victims was quite pronounced and a view was canvassed that unless justice to the victim is put as one of the focal points of criminal proceedings, the system is unlikely to restore the balance as a fair procedure in the pursuit of truth. Furthermore, it was pointed out that support and co-operation of witnesses will not be forthcoming unless their status is considerably improved along with justice to victims. This perception was strengthened while the Committee examined the systems prevalent in other jurisdictions. The U. N. system also wanted member countries to guarantee rights of victims of crime through their respective legal systems. In the circumstances, the Committee resolved to give adequate importance to the idea of justice to victims of crime in the scheme of reform to be recommended. This chapter of the report is specifically addressed to rights of victims with a view to solicit their maximum support to criminal proceedings and to restore the confidence of people in Criminal Justice System.
Basically two types of rights are recognized in many jurisdictions particularly in continental countries in respect of victims of crime. They are, firstly, the victim’s right to participate in criminal proceedings (right to be impleaded, right to know, right to be heard and right to assist the court in the pursuit of truth) and secondly, the right to seek and receive compensation from the criminal court itself for injuries suffered as well as appropriate interim reliefs in the course of proceedings.
6.4 It is interesting to find that the European system assigned a very active role assigned to the victim or his representative in criminal proceedings. For example, in France, all those who suffer damage on account of the commission of an offence are entitled to become parties to the proceedings from the investigation stage itself. He can assist investigation on proper lines and move the court for appropriate directions when the investigation gets delayed or distorted for whatever reasons. His active participation during trial will be of great help in the search for truth without inconveniencing the prosecution. He may suggest questions to the court to be put to witnesses produced in court. He may conduct the proceedings if the public prosecutor does not show due diligence. He can supplement the evidence adduced by the prosecution and put forth his own arguments. He would be of help to the court in the matter of deciding the grant or cancellation of trial. He will adduce evidence in the matter of loss, pain and suffering to decide on his entitlement of interim reliefs and compensation by way of restitution. Wrongful attempts to withdraw or close the prosecution due to extraneous factors can be resisted if the court were to have the continued assistance of the victim. For all these reasons and more, it is clear that if the criminal proceedings have to be fair to both the parties and if the court were to be properly assisted in its search for truth, the law has to recognize the right of victim’s participation in investigation, prosecution and trial. If the victim is dead, or otherwise not available this right should vest in the next of kin. It should be possible even for Government Welfare bodies and voluntary organizations registered for welfare of victims of sexual offences, child victims, those in charge of the care of aged and handicapped persons to implead themselves as parties whenever the court finds it appropriate for a just disposal of the case.
6.5 The right of the victim should extend to prefer an appeal against any adverse order passed by the trial court. The appellate court should have the same powers to hear appeals against acquittal as it now has to entertain appeal against conviction. There is no credible and fair reason why appeals against acquittals should lie only to the High Court.
6.6 The right of representation by lawyer is a constitutional right of every accused and there is no reason why it should not be available to the victim as well. If the victim is an indigent person, the Legal Services Authority should be directed by the Court to provide a lawyer at State expense.
VICTIMS UNDER THE EXISTING CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
6.7.1 Historically speaking, Criminal Justice System seems to exist to protect the power, the privilege and the values of the elite sections in society. The way crimes are defined and the system is administered demonstrate that there is an element of truth in the above perception even in modern times. However, over the years the dominant function of criminal justice is projected to be protecting all citizens from harm to either their person or property, the assumption being that it is the primary duty of a State under rule of law. The State does this by depriving individuals of the power to take law into their own hands and using its power to satisfy the sense of revenge through appropriate sanctions. The State (and society), it was argued, is itself the victim when a citizen commits a crime and thereby questions its norms and authority. In the process of this transformation of torts to crimes, the focus of attention of the system shifted from the real victim who suffered the injury (as a result of the failure of the State) to the offender and how he is dealt with by the State.
Criminal justice came to comprehend all about crime, the criminal, the way he is dealt with, the process of proving his guilt and the ultimate punishment given to him. The civil law was supposed to take care of the monetary and other losses suffered by the victim. Victims were marginalized and the State stood forth as the victim to prosecute and punish the accused.
6.7.2 What happens to the right of the victim to get justice to the harm suffered? Well, he can be satisfied if the State successfully gets the criminal punished to death, a prison sentence or fine. How does he get justice if the State does not succeed in so doing? Can he ask the State to compensate him for the injury? In principle, that should be the logical consequence in such a situation; but the State which makes the law absolves itself of such liability. Not only the victim’s right to compensation was ignored except a token provision under the Criminal Procedure Code but also the right to participate as the dominant stakeholder in criminal proceedings was taken away from him. He has no right to lead evidence, he cannot challenge the evidence through cross-examination of witnesses nor can he advance arguments to influence decision-making.
6.7.3 What is the present role that victim is assigned under the existing criminal law? When a person who has been the victim of a cognizable offence gives information to the police regarding the same, the police is required to reduce the information into writing and read it over to the informant. The informant is required to sign it and get a copy of the FIR [section 154 (1) & (2) of Cr.P.C.]. If the police refuses to record the information, the victim – informant is allowed to send it in writing and by post to the S. P. concerned [Section 154 (3)]. If the police refuses to investigate the case for whatever reason, the police officer is required to notify the informant of that fact [Section 157 (2)].
6.7.4 Alternatively, victims are enabled by Section 190 of the Cr. P. C. to avoid going to the Police Station for redress and directly approach the Magistrate with his complaint.
6.7.5 Complainants say that they are treated indifferently by police and sometimes harassed when they go to them with their grievances. There are complaints that the police do not truthfully record the information but distort facts as found convenient to them. Cognizable cases are made non-cognizable and viceversa. Complainants are sometimes made the accused and investigations initiated accordingly. Though these are unauthorized by the law and are rare, yet whenever it happens the victim gets disillusioned and alienated from the system itself.
6.7.6 The investigation process is exclusively a police function and the victim has a role only if the police consider it necessary. There are administrative instructions given by police departments of certain States to give information on progress of investigation to the victim when asked for. Otherwise till police report (charge sheet) is filed under Section 173 Cr. P. C., the victim’s plight is pitiable. This is the time victims need assistance the most and the law is silent on it. After the police report is taken cognizance of by the Magistrate, if he decides to drop the proceedings, it is required of him to hear the victim-informant by issuing notice to him [1997 Cr. L. J. 4636 (S.C.)] The Court seems to have recognized a gap in the statutory provision and enjoined the court not to drop proceedings without giving an opportunity to the victim to ventilate his grievance.
6.7.7 Pending investigation and prosecution, there are several things that a victim-friendly Criminal Justice System needs to address on an urgent basis. For example, victims of rape and domestic violence etc. require trauma counseling, psychiatric and rehabilitative services apart from legal aid. The object is to avoid secondary victimization and provide hope in the justice system. At the police station level, with or without the assistance of voluntary organizations, victim support services need to be organised systematically if the system were to redeem its credibility in society.
6.7.8 The existing law only envisages the prosecutor appointed by the State to be the proper authority to plead on behalf of the victim. However, the Code does not completely prohibit a victim from participating in the prosecution. A counsel engaged by the victim may be given a limited role in the conduct of prosecution, that too only with the permission of the court. The counsel so engaged is to act under the directions of the public prosecutor. The only other privilege a victim might exercise is to submit again with the permission of the court, written arguments after the closure of evidence in the trial. This requires change on the lines proposed above.
6.7.9 In the granting and cancellation of bail, victims have substantial interests though not fully recognized by law. Section 439 (2) may allow a victim to move the Court for cancellation of bail; but the action thereon depends very much on the stand taken by the prosecution. Similarly prosecution can seek withdrawal at any time during trial without consulting the victim (Section 321 Cr. P. C.). Of course, the victim may proceed to prosecute the case as a private complainant; but he seems to have no right to challenge the prosecution decision at the trial stage itself. This is another change the Committee would recommend for justice to victims.
6.7.10 Victims have a right to testify as prosecution witness. However, victims often fall prey to intimidation and harassment by offenders which tend to dissuade them from testifying freely and truthfully. Though it is the duty of the State to prevent such things, the situation according to available evidence is disturbing. There is no victim protection law as such and police is not in a position to protect every victim. Such conduct, of course, is prohibited under the IPC (Section 504 IPC).
6.7.11 The situation is alarming in respect of victim witnesses who belong to vulnerable sections of society. The adversarial trial built around cross- examination of witnesses often result in adding insult to injury against which even the Court may not be of much help. In several offences the experience may be a nightmare to victims acknowledging this predicament, Government has adopted recently an amendment preventing character assassination during trial of sexual offences.
6.7.12 There is need for an officer equivalent to Probation Officer to take care of victim interests in investigation and trial. He may be called Victim Support Service Co-ordinator who may work closely with the police and Courts to monitor, co-ordinate and ensure delivery of justice during the pendency of the case.
6.7.13 Compounding is a process through which the offender and the victim come to an agreement to put an end to the tension arising out of the criminal action. Offences which are compoundable and the persons by whom they could be compounded are indicated in Section 320 of the Cr. P. C. The Section specifies two lists of offences : one, compoundable without the permission of the Court, and the other, relatively more grave offences, which are compoundable with the permission of the Court. Sometimes the requirement of permission of the Court before compounding is got over by making the complainant and other prosecution witnesses retract their statements given to police and to depose favourably to the accused. The Committee is in favour of giving a role to the victim in the negotiation leading to settlement of criminal cases either through courts, Lok Adalats or Plea-bargaining
By Rana Ajit, IANS
New Delhi : Whether it was Justice Markandey Katju’s obey-your-wife remark or Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan’s polluters-must-pay ruling, the Supreme Court continued to hog the limelight in 2009. Topping them was the repeated order that stopped the statue installation spree of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati.
Justice B.N. Agrawal had to even threaten the state chief secretary with contempt of court proceedings to have his order obeyed. Another bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan later suspended Mayawati’s bid to create another statue gallery for herself and her mentor Kanshi Ram on the outskirts of Delhi in the state’s showpiece town Noida.
In yet another significant ruling, the apex court tried to stop the mushrooming of religious structures by encroaching upon public land. On July 31, a bench of Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Justice Mukundkam Sharma ordered the central and all state governments to ensure that no new place of worship is built illegally on public land anywhere.
Justice Katju had been in the news earlier too, on April 28, when he asked the central government to form a panel of scientists to “take up research on a war footing” to tackle the country’s water problem.
On Nov 11, the same judge issued an order to ascertain the apex court’s legislative and executive powers. Expressing reservation over an earlier apex court order framing guidelines for the conduct of students union elections in colleges and universities across the country, the bench referred the crucial issue for examination by a constitution bench.
The year also saw the apex court ordering a record compensation for a victim of medical negligence on May 14, when Hyderabad-based Nizam Medical Institute was asked to pay Rs.10 million to Bangalore-based Infosys engineer Prashanth S. Dhananka, who had been paralysed from the waist down after a botched up surgery.
Chief Justice Balakrishnan imposed a steep Rs.556 million fine on industrialists engaged in dyeing and bleaching work at Hirpur in Tamil Nadu for polluting the Noyyal river virtually beyond redemption.
The country’s top court was also in the news when a group of defendants threw footwear at a judge. Justice Altmas Kabir held that convicting summarily and punishing instantly an obvious contemnor was just and fair, while jailing four women officials of a Mumbai-based music school for throwing footwear March 20 this year at erstwhile Justice Arijit Pasayat in the courtroom.
The year also saw the apex court devising the concept of life-long jail term to meet the need of a punishment milder than the death penalty but harsher than the normal 14-year term.
Justice B.N. Agrawal came with the concept to meet “the end of justice” in the case of a diabolical murder committed by a so-called god man Swamy Shraddananda.
The year subsequently saw the apex court catching up with the global trend of decades-long jailing for murders most foul in several cases.
On Oct 9, it jailed for the rest of his life 28-year-old Sebastian alias Chevithiyan from Kerala, for stealing a two-year-old girl from her sleeping mother’s side and bludgeoning her to death after raping her.
In keeping with this new principle, another bench on Aug 27 imposed a 35-year-long jail term on a West Bengal youth, Haru Ghosh, for murdering a 30-year-old woman and her 12-year-old son in May 2005.
(Rana Ajit can be contacted at email@example.com)