Victim’s Rights And Access To Justice In India - Issues And Prospects In The Modern Era

Author: LawSphereX

Category: General Law

Published: 2026-08-23T21:41:28.020987+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:05:05.383+00:00

VICTIM’S RIGHTS AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE IN INDIA:

ISSUES AND PROSPECTS IN THE MODERN ERA

Dr. K. Gowri, Assistant Professor, Government Law College, Tiruchirappalli Dr. J. Devi, Assistant Professor, Government Law College, Chengalpattu

ABSTRACT

The conceptual framework of victim rights has nothing to do with the law of the land in the pre-constitutional era. Following the implementation of fundamental rights, the Criminal Justice System underwent a substantial transformation to acknowledge victim rights. The victim is nearly forgotten once the crime occurred, but the case is registered as soon as he files a complaint with the police. The victim has no recourse to appeal the lower court’s decision, even if the accused is found not guilty or the punishment is deemed insufficient. Nevertheless, the statutory measures are insufficient to protect the victim’s rights. The recent amendments made in the three major criminal laws ensure the rights of victims to some extent.

The aim of this paper is to see how the victims of crime are to be treated at par with the accused person by the criminal justice system with regard to the right of access to justice. This research paper will incidentally explain about the victim rights in detail by analysing the legislations in India and elaborately dealing with the difference between the victim and complainant. The researcher also covers the efforts made and suggests remedial measures towards ensuring an effective framework of rights for victims. Keywords: Victim of the crime, FIR, Right of representation, Right to oppose bail, Right to appeal, Legislative safeguards.

INTRODUCTION

India’s criminal justice system was governed by the Criminal Procedure Code, the Indian Evidence Act, and the Indian Penal Code and these laws were repealed in 2023. Three new significant criminal laws, Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharathiya Sakshiya Adhyam (BSA), were introduced in 2023 and became effective force on July 1st, 2024. It is BNSS which entitles both the victim and the accused to certain safeguards and protections. It contains numerous provisions to ensure a fair and just trial for the accused, at every stage of the procedure of trial. However, such provisions for the victims are very few. The substantive and procedural aspects of Indian criminal law are the main focus of this essay. The concept of victim rights was absent from the IPC (substantive) and CRPC (procedural) during the pre-constitutional era.

In this nation’s criminal justice system, the victim of the crime was a “Nobody. ” Nonetheless, as stated in Articles 14 and 21, the Indian Constitution protects a number of fundamental rights that are essential to maintaining fairness and human dignity. As a result, the entire Criminal Justice System undergoes a substantial transformation to acknowledge the rights of victims. Generally speaking, the victim’s involvement in the investigation is restricted to filing a report under S. 173 BNSS and providing a S. 180 statement. According to the CrPC, the victim would not be informed of the accused’s arrest or the status of the investigation. There is no explicit clause in the code that gives the victim the chance to contest the granting of bail when the courts are deliberating over the issue. The code makes no explicit mention of notifying the victim of the findings of an investigation.

The victim is at the discretion of the police and prosecutor and has the sole right to testify in court. According to statute, he has the authority to enlist a private advocate to support the prosecution with the court’s approval. In summary, the code does not grant him any independent legal authority to conduct or to appeal an order to a subordinate criminal court. Before S. 372 of the Cr. P. C. was introduced, the victim had no right to challenge the acquittal or the insufficiency of penalty, even after acquittal. The state must assist the victim, who is an innocent person with the right to life and liberty. The harm that a criminal does to a victim should be viewed as harm to society and the

state. The state has an obligation to support the victim’s cause and pursue justice. In cases where the matter is not handled correctly, the victim may file a private complaint against the criminal. Despite the system’s shortcomings and the victim’s lack of justice, the higher judiciary’s courts have their own methods for protecting the victim’s interests overall and creating new chances for them. The researcher proceeds by deliberating on the rights which are directly or indirectly related to the right of the victims to access justice. This paper highlights and compares the various rights available to the victims in the CrPC and newly enacted BNSS. The appeal provisions will be interpreted in this article, with a focus on the victim’s statutory right to appeal against acquittal, conviction for a reduced punishment, or imposition of insufficient compensation.

In order to answer the question, “Why did Sec. 372 use victim instead of complainant? ” the researcher will attempt to determine the legislative intent behind the law. The researcher also recommends at the end of the study that certain procedures be adopted in order to establish the victims’ right to receive justice.

CHALLENGES IN VICTIM ACCESS TO JUSTICE

Despite the progress, victims in India continue to face numerous barriers in accessing justice. Some of the prominent challenges include: Ø Delayed Justice - The criminal justice system in India is notorious for delays. Victims often face long waiting periods for trials and outcomes, which can be discouraging and demoralizing. Ø Lack of Awareness - Many victims, especially from marginalized communities, are unaware of their legal rights or the mechanisms in place for seeking justice. This lack of awareness prevents them from utilizing available resources. Ø Intimidation and Victim Blaming - In certain cases, victims, particularly women, may face social stigma, intimidation, or even threats for pursuing legal action. This can result in victims withdrawing from the judicial process.

Ø Untrained Police Force - Often, police officers lack training in handling sensitive cases such as domestic violence, sexual assault, and trafficking. This can lead to mishandling

of cases, and sometimes, the revictimization of individuals. Ø Financial and Psychological Barriers - Legal fees, transportation, and the psychological toll of undergoing lengthy legal battles are substantial hurdles for many victims, especially from lower-income backgrounds.

NATIONAL & INTERNATIONAL SCENRIO

The right of victims to take part in criminal proceedings is indirectly upheld by Art. 21 of Indian Constitution which tacitly supports the principles of a fair inquiry and trial. The state apparatus is heavily relied upon by the society to provide a fair trial and inquiry. The United Nations General Assembly adopted a proclamation of fundamental principles of justice for victims of crimes and abuses of power during its plenary on November 25, 1985, demonstrating how vocal victim rights were in the 19th century. The plenary declaration acknowledges the four main rights of victims of crime: assistance, compensation, restitution, and equal access to justice with impartial treatment. The magna carta of victim rights was already in place and included in Chapter III of the Indian Constitution, specifically under Article 21.

But because India’s statutory rights were insufficient, the government established a committee to overhaul the criminal justice system, led by Hon. Justice Dr. V. S. Malimath1, to address the demand for justice for crime victims. The following is a summary of the recommendations pertaining to victim rights: • In certain cases notified by the relevant government, an authorised voluntary organisation may also be admitted as a party to court proceedings with the consent of the court; • In other cases, the victim and, if deceased, his legal representative may be admitted as a party in any criminal proceeding where the offence carries a sentence of seven years in prison or more. • The victim has the right to participate in criminal cases and to have an advocate of his

1 Justice Malimath Commitee Report on Criminal Justice System. Available at:

www.mha.nic.in/hindi/sites/upload_files/mhahindi/.../criminal_justice_system.pdf (Last accessed on 14/09/2024)

choosing, if the victim cannot afford one, the State will pay for the advocate. • The victim is entitled to file an appeal against any unfavourable ruling made by the court that exonerates the accused, convicts them of a lesser crime, imposes an insufficient punishment, or provides insufficient compensation. Such an appeal will be filed with the court that ordinarily hears appeals against such a court’s conviction order.2

DEFINITION OF VICTIM

The definition of Victim3 must include “harm caused to the mind,” which is equivalent to the definition of injury outlined in Section 2(13) of the BNS, as the victim is “a person who has suffered any loss or injury. ” The criterion of closeness applies to “legal heirs,” who are considered “victims. ” Due to the emotional pain they went through, the father, siblings, or other individuals would truly meet the description of a murdered victim. The 2008 CrPC Amendment was designed to ensure the victim’s participation by implementing the Heydon’s Mischief Rule. The victim is likely to have a personal stake in the trial or appeal being handled fairly and effectively. Because the heir is neither the direct successor nor lowest in the hierarchy with respect to the crime victim’s assets, an appellate court cannot dismiss an appeal by a “legal heir.

” In the first sense, it is fairly clear that victims are the people who are harmed or lose something; the only people who are given rights are the actual victims, whenever feasible, who are directly affected by a crime or offence (“act or omission”) for which the offender bears responsibility (“accused person”). The associated part is the second part of the word, or the “pull in,” if you will. Parliament sought to include others who are associated to her (or him) but are not direct victims of the act by using the word “includes. ” This was necessary because the victim who suffered “harm to the mind,” being a loved one of the victim simpliciter, would be considered to have suffered both “loss” and “injury” if the victim had died (from the actual crime, such as murder, dowry death, etc. ) and the victim was also not able to exercise their right to participate in the trial.

Victims who have experienced “injury” that is direct and proximate “harm to the mind” cannot be reasonably excluded by the legal heirs, as they can

2 Ibid

3 Section 2(1)(x) of the BNSS

only appeal against an acquittal with regard to this related sense. Other high courts agreed with this reasoning, which overturned the Chatter Singh v. Subhash and Ors4.

RIGHT TO FILE AN FIR

The current criminal justice system treats police-reported offences as crimes against the State, which investigates the offence, brings the perpetrator before the court for trial, and charges him in the court of law. Whenever the victim reports the incident, they have their first chance to engage with the system. If an officer-in-charge of a police station receives information verbally or electronically, they are required by S. 173 of the Cr. P. C. to put it in writing. Then, after reading it aloud to the informant and having him or her sign it, they are required to give it to the informant in accordance with clause (2) of this section. In a number of situations, the courts have ruled that the police have an obligation to file a First Information Report (FIR) and then begin an investigation.

5 For any reason, if the police officer decline to look into the situation for whatever reason, they must tell the informant of this fact. 6 Even while the BNSS protects the right to register a formal complaint and has safeguards to guarantee its execution, flagrant violations of these laws lead to unfathomable hardship, with a significant portion of complaints going unanswered by the police. This issue mostly affects women who report sexual assault. Even in cases where these groups are successful in filing a complaint, the police frequently falsify the informant’s statements. 7 According to the researcher, the initial and primary aspect of victims’ rights to seek justice is their ability to register a formal complaint. As a result, these rules need to be properly followed.

ZERO FIR

The BNSS has explicitly acknowledged the right to file zero FIRs, as stipulated in Section 173. Thus, the new law helps to remove one of the obstacles victims encounter when filing a First Information Report (FIR) and forbids the police from invoking a lack of territorial

4 176 (2011) DLT 356

5 See State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) CrLJ 527; Gurmita v. State of Punjab, (1996) CrLJ 1254 (P&H).

6 S.176(2) BNSS

7 Subhradipta Sarkar, The Quest for Victims’ Justice in India, available at:

http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/17/2sarkar.pdf?rd=1 as last visited on 9.9.2024.

jurisdiction as an excuse to evade their obligation to record first information. Although this is a crucial protection, it did not originate by the BNSS and was previously required by the Central Government8. The judiciary has also heavily enforced it in a number of cases. 9 The Supreme Court ruled in Lalita Kumari10 that where information provided by the police reveals a cognizable offence, the police are required to register an FIR. The State must address the widespread problem of FIR non-registration, which persists despite numerous court rulings of this kind.11 It is therefore unclear if the BNSS will truly address this issue if it is passed into law.

RIGHT TO KNOW THE PROGRESS AND TO BE HEARD BY THE MAGISTRATE

Section 193 indirectly deals with the right to be heard by the magistrate. After registering an FIR, the police then investigate the crime. At this stage, the police are exclusively in charge of an investigation over which the victims have no influence and about which they know absolutely nothing. This renders the victim defenceless, which is made worse by the police’s lack of interest in reporting crimes, which deters the victim and makes him a laughing stock. Under our country’s current criminal laws, the victim has no legitimate right to insist that the police carry out a comprehensive and effective investigation of the crime. It will be in the best interest of justice to recognise the victim’s right to be updated on the status of the inquiry and to be given the opportunity to submit relevant evidence along with to their statement in situations involving cognisable offences.

If the police want to provide a final report to the magistrate, they must give the victim (or initial informant) a chance to be heard. The de facto complainant should always be notified and given an opportunity to express his concerns before the magistrate approves the final report of completion in a case. This is required because poor investigations can cause trials to start years later since no charge sheet has ever been submitted. Section 193(3)(ii) was recently amended to incorporate a new requirement that the police officer notify the victim or informant of the investigation’s progress

8 Ministry of Home Affairs, ‘Advisory on comprehensive approach towards crimes against women’, No.

5011/22/2015 – SC/ST – W, dated 12 May 2015 9 State of Andhra Pradesh v. Punati Ramulu 1994 Supp (1) SCC 590; Kirti Vashisht v. State 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11713

10 Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1

11 Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2006) 2 SCC 677; Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India (2007) 6 SCC 171; Lallan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (2006) 12 SCC 229

within ninety days, using any method, including electronic contact. Furthermore, without previously consulting the victim, the prosecution may ask for withdrawal at any time during a trial. The Supreme Court defined Section 173 CrPC, which requires the issuing of such a notice, in Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of Police12. The Court ruled that after examining the report provided by the police station officer under Section 173(2)(i), the informant must be given the opportunity to be heard in order to make his case to the magistrate to take cognisance of the offence and issue process.

Therefore, if the magistrate to whom a report is submitted under Section 173(2)(i) decides not to take cognisance of the offence and to drop the proceeding, or if the magistrate feels that there is inadequate justification for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the first information report, the magistrate must notify the informant and give him an opportunity to be heard during the consideration of the report. This judgment was followed in Union Public Service Commission v. S. Papaiah13.

RIGHT TO HAVE A GOOD LEGAL REPRESENTATION

Under Sec 18(8) of BNSS which provides for a Public Prosecutor (PP) who represents the victim in the court may be assisted by the advocate of his choice. However, as the PP is overburdened with the number of cases that he has to present, it is not always possible for the PP to represent the best case for the victim. . Even if he hires a lawyer during a case trial, a police challan, or an appeal hearing, the lawyer is merely regarded as a “counsel by sufferance” and can or cannot be heard by the court. Helping the public prosecutor is the best he can do, but only if the PP genuinely desires his assistance. Thus, the researcher contends that, as long as the victim has chosen a capable lawyer to defend him, he should receive the same treatment as the PP.

VICTIM’S STATUTORY RIGHT TO OPPOSE THE GRANT OF BAIL

When the accused is arrested in a non-bailable offence, he can make an application for bail and ask to be released from the police or judicial custody, after fulfilling certain conditions.14 Although the accused is thought to have the right to bail, the victim does not have

12 Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of Police , AIR 1985 SC 1285.

13 Union Public Service Commission v. S. Papaiah, 1997 SCC (CRI) 1112.

14 S.480 of BNSS

the same right to object to bail on the grounds that he would feel endangered by the accused’s release. Only the State has the option to object to or not object to the granting of bail. Even while there isn’t a specific statutory provision that allows the victim to state his arguments, he nevertheless has the ability to do so throughout the bail application stage. In Saravanabavanandam v. Murugaiyan and others15, the court took an inventive measure. “That there is no statutory provision to give the victim a chance to hear him at the time the said final report is considered by the court, whether it is a negative report or a partially negative report. ” In Bhagwat Singh v. Commissioner of Police16, the Hon’ble Apex court held that “Notice should be given to the victim by the court and opportunity should be given to file objection if any; hear him and then to pass appropriate orders.

Hence, it is clear that Victim do have the statutory right to oppose the grant of bail in the pending criminal cases.

TIME OF ACCRUAL OF RIGHT TO APPEAL BY VICTIM

In consonance, with the UN Declaration of basic principles of Justice for victim of crimes and abuse of power, the recommendations of the Law Commission of India and the recommendations of the Malimath Committee, the CrPC Amendment Bill, 2008, was introduced and the same was passed by the Parliament, which received the assent of the President on 07. 01. 2009 and it was published in the Gazette of India on 09. 01. 2009 and the same has been brought into force with effect from 31. 12. 2009. It will be obvious that the intention of the Legislature in amending the Code is to give absolute right to the victims of crimes to file appeals against the acquittal of the accused. By means of this amendment, the proviso to Section 372 CrPC (Sec 413 BNSS) was introduced, thereby creating a statutory right of appeal for the victims of crimes.

The said proviso to Section 372, reads as follows:- “Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against

15 1986 LW Crl 165

16 (1985) 2 SCC 537

the order of conviction of such Court.” For a better understanding, let us now have a quick look into Section 378(4) CrPC (Sec

419 BNSS), which reads as follows:-

“If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court.” Intention of Legislature: A comparative reading of these sections 413 and 419 would make it noticeable that the

statutory right of appeal has been conferred only on a victim and not on a complainant. The term “victim” has been defined in Section 2(wa), which was also introduced by means of the same amendment. But, the term “complainant” as employed in Section 419 BNSS has not been defined precisely anywhere in the Act. However, the legal meaning to the said word is traceable to the term “complaint”, as defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the sanhita, which reads as follows:- “Complaint” means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Sanhita, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. Therefore, it is obvious that the term “complaint” refers to the genus and the term “victim” to the species.

As a result, it makes sense that the person who files the complaint and has it taken into consideration is the complainant. The complainant does not always have to be the victim in a private complaint case. By submitting a private complaint, even a third party can initiate the law. Additionally, a victim may make a private complaint, in which case he will be considered both “the victim” and “the complainant. ” The victim may not be the complainant in a particular private complaint action, but he may testify. The Legislature has not used the term “complainant”, while introducing the proviso to Section 372 of CrPC and instead, the Legislature has used the expression “victim” and has also taken pains to introduce Section 2(wa) of CrPC to define the term “victim”. It cannot be said that the Legislature was not aware of Section 378(4) of CrPC, where the Legislature has used

the expression “complainant”. This difference in language must serve a purpose. Section 378(4) of CrPC would have been meaningless if the Legislature had substituted the word “complainant” for the word “victim” in the proviso to Section 372 of the Code. However, the Code of Criminal Procedure’s Section 378(4) has been purposefully kept in place by the Legislature without being omitted, thus it should continue to function in tandem with the Code’s Section 372 proviso. It is generally established that two provisions of the same statute cannot contradict as a result of statutory interpretation. Any interpretation, given to different provisions in a statute, should be to have both the provisions workable, meaningful and such interpretation should not lead to any absurdity or anomalous situation.

In the case on hand, if the proviso to Section 372 and Section 378(4) of the old code are read conjointly, it can be perceived that the Legislature has retained Section 378(4) of CrPC, for, the Legislature has not intended to give statutory right of appeal to a complainant/non-victim. The Legislature has given right of appeal under the statute by means of a proviso to Section 413 of BNSS only to victims of crimes. To this extent, there can be no difficulty in understanding these two provisions. In a private complaint case, the problem could occur if the complainant also happens to be a victim. In such an event, the remedy for the complainantcum-victim is only to seek leave under Section 419 of BNSS, whereas the other argument advanced is that he can exercise his statutory right of appeal as a victim-cum-complainant under the proviso to Section 413.

Admittedly, the victim of crime in a police report case has got right of appeal under proviso to Section 413 of BNSS. Depriving such a victim of his right to file an appeal, for the reason that he filed the private complaint,, would be unreasonable and illogical. There can be no further classification of the victims in police report cases and the victims in private complaint cases as two distinct categories. The Legislature has not distinguished the victims in police report cases and the victims in private complaint cases. The Legislature has used the expression “victim” thereby bringing within its ambit the victims in both the police report cases as well as in the private complaint cases.

Simply because the victim of a crime has taken pains to prosecute the accused by way of a private complaint, in the event of acquittal of the accused, he should not be deprived of his right of appeal, as, still he continues to be the victim of the crime. The term “victim”, does not exclude a victim, who happens to be the complainant in the

private complaint case. Assume a situation that there are two victims in a private complaint case before a Magistrate, where one is the complainant and the other is only a witness. The case ends in acquittal. If the above interpretation is not accepted, as the correct exposition of law, then, the first victim has to seek leave to appeal before the High Court and the second victim has to file an appeal before the Court of Session. The Supreme Court said that as the right of appeal is a substantive right, it always operates in the future. According to the Supreme Court’s rulings in Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India17, Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra18, Kailash v. Nanhku and Ors19. & H. P. State Electricity Regulatory Commission v. H. P. SEB20, all statutes are prospective unless they are specifically or impliedly made to have retrospective operation.

This will result only in an anomalous situation. Now from the above illustrations and discussions, the following conclusions emerge- “As per proviso to Section 413 of BNSS, a victim of a crime, either in a police report case or in a private complaint case, has got statutory right to file an appeal and there is no need for him to seek any leave as Section 419 of BNSS is not applicable to him. A victim, who also happens to be a complainant in a private complaint case, also has got right of appeal under proviso to Section 413 of BNSS and there is no need for him to seek leave under Section 419, as the said provision is not applicable to him. If the complainant is not a victim, then, as against the acquittal of the accused, he does not have statutory right of appeal under proviso to Section 413 and instead, he has to seek only leave under Section 419 of BNSS.

” Right to Appeal against Conviction Any anyone found guilty at a trial conducted by a High Court within its extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction may file an appeal with the Supreme Court, according to Section

415 of the BNSS. Any individual convicted in a trial conducted by a Sessions Judge, Additional

Sessions Judge, or any other court and given a sentence of more than seven years in jail may file an appeal with the High Court. A person can file an appeal to the Sessions Court if they are

17 (2011) 6 SCC 739

18 AIR 1994 SC 2623

19 (2005) 4 SCC 480

20 (2014) 5 SCC 219

found guilty at a trial presided over by a Metropolitan Magistrate, Assistant Sessions Judge, or Magistrate of the first or second class. A potential basis for reversing the trial on appeal is any injustice that shows bias against

the accused. However, an error that does not compromise the trial's basic fairness cannot be overturned on appeal. For instance, there would be grounds for reversal if a case that ought to have been handled as a warrant case was tried as a summons case (where the criteria for recording evidence are lower), but the opposite would not be true. Instead of bringing out inconsistencies on appeal, it is recommended to bring them up as soon as feasible during the case. However, just because anomalies were not raised during the initial trial does not mean that an appeal can be dismissed. Lastly, if police disregarded evidence that may have cleared the accused, there would be a compelling argument for reversal on appeal. 21 The Cr. P. C. contains a comprehensive list of anomalies that can or cannot reverse a trial on appeal.

22 In the event that the magistrate hearing the case determines that there was insufficient justification for the detention the magistrate may grant the person who made the arrest compensation for his lost time and costs associated with the case, up to a maximum of one thousand rupees. 23

RIGHT TO HAVE TO BE HEARD IN SENTENCING

Following the recording of the evidence and the hearing of arguments, the accused is found guilty or not guilty, a decision that greatly worries the victim of crime. An accused person has the legal right to be heard regarding the penalty amount following a conviction, but sadly, the victim of a crime is not given the same opportunity. A victim of crime only has a very restricted right to revision, and only in certain special cases. Regarding the purpose of sentence, the court noted in Bheru Singh v. State of Rajasthan24 that the appellant had killed his wife and five children: “The object of sentencing should be to see that the crime does not go unpunished and the victim of crime as also the society has the satisfaction that justice has been done to it.

21 Pursottam Jathanand v. State of Kutch, AIR 1954 SC 700

22 Section 506-512 Chapter XXXVII of the Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

23 Section 399 of the Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

24 Bheru Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1994) 2 SCC 467.

Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The courts must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the rights of the victim of crime and the society at large while considering imposition of appropriate punishment.” Thus, with regard to the victims’ right of access to justice, the researcher submits that sentencing is the most important stage of the criminal trial and therefore, the victim must have the right or opportunity of being heard of his view of appropriate punishment for the accused.

RIGHT TO MONETARY COMPENSATION

Apart from adequate sentencing, it is essential that the loss incurred by the victim due to the harm inflicted upon him by the offender and due to the trial procedure, should be compensated. According to S. 399 of the BNSS, anyone who induces a police officer to take custody of someone illegally is required to give a small amount of compensation to the person who was detained. It is important to highlight that a prosecution is a need for a compensation order. Therefore, there cannot be any compensation if there is neither a prosecution nor a sentence. Although compensation has occasionally been granted at the court’s discretion, victims do not have this entitlement unless a relevant legislation provision has been passed. In Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh25 the Court said: “S. 357(2) of CrPC is an important provision but courts have seldom invoked it.

It may be noted that this power of courts to award compensation is not ancillary to other sentences but it is in addition thereto. This power was intended to do something to reassure the victim that he or she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system. It is a measure of responding appropriately to crime as well as reconciling the victim with the offender. It is, to some extent, a constructive approach to the crimes. It is indeed a step forward in our criminal justice system. ” Since the compensation according to Sec 395 of BNSS is essentially illusory, the victim must initially go through a criminal trial to prove the offender’s guilt before proceeding with a civil trial to receive appropriate compensation. This lengthy process causes numerous issues for the victim.

25 Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh, ( 1988) 4 SCC 551

Therefore, the researcher respectfully argues that compensation ought to be made legally required since it is a crucial component of the victims’ right to receive justice.

RIGHT IN CASE OF WITHDRAWAL FROM PROSECUTION

According to Section 321 CrPC, the prosecutor may, with the court’s approval, end the prosecution of a case at any point prior to the verdict being rendered. The victim cannot be heard on stage or have the judicially stated principles made a reality for them under the CrPC. BNSS fills this gap, nevertheless, with Section 360. With the significant feature which the victim must be properly heard prior to such withdrawal is permitted, this clause essentially echoes Sec. 321 CrPC. This acknowledges the victim as an important participant in the criminal trial.

RIGHT TO GET COPY OF DOCUMENTS

According to Section 230 of the BNSS, victims are entitled to information regarding the specifics of their case, including police reports, FIRs, witness testimonies, and other documents. This is done in order to facilitate the victim’s meaningful and successful involvement in the criminal justice system. If a police report is the basis for the proceeding, the magistrate must provide a copy of other documents to the accused along with the victim (if they are represented by an advocate) at no later than fourteen days after the accused’s appearance or date of production.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR TRANSFORMATION

The future of victim’s access to justice in India could involve several key reforms: v Strengthening the Role of Law Enforcement - Training law enforcement officers in trauma-informed practices and creating more women-friendly police stations would help victims feel safer and more supported during the investigation process. v Use of Technology for Legal Aid - Expanding the use of AI-driven platforms and online portals to offer legal consultations and tracking the progress of cases would ensure greater transparency and faster access to justice. v Awareness Campaigns- Increasing public awareness about victim rights and the

resources available is crucial. This can be done through media campaigns, social media, and educational programs to inform the public, especially vulnerable populations, about their legal rights and available support. Apart from the rights discussed above, there are numerous others which are directly or indirectly linked to the right of access to justice. The researcher suggests some of these rights:- Ø At release, plea, execution, commutation, and pardon proceedings, victims must be heard; Ø they must not be excluded from any public proceedings, escape, or release related to the crime; Ø they must not be subjected to undue delay or decisions that ignoring their safety or their legitimate claims to restitution.

Other measures can also be taken to ensure that such rights are enforced properly, for example: establishing fast track courts for speedy justice, right of access to documents like station diaries, use of video-conferencing while interrogating the accused, daily hearing etc. Thus, the law should be flexible enough to ensure that the victims’ right of access to justice is ensured

CONCLUSION

It is odd that after reporting or complaining, a victim of crime who has been mistreated by the accused and has gone to the State through the police or the judiciary to get justice is made to feel worthless. Using the victim as a witness and establishing guilt or innocence appears to be the only objective of the criminal justice system at the moment. It is essential that victims be given a precise status under the criminal code, since the main objective of the legal system is to preserve and strengthen public confidence in the administration of justice. The victim’s wish to see the culprit punished cannot completely disregard or override the state’s interest. “When state agencies fail to successfully prosecute offenders, as is often the case, victims are left to in two ways suffer injustice in silence or sought personal retribution by

taking the law into their own hands. ”26 Therefore, under the present criminal justice system, victims of crime are not guaranteed a sufficient right to obtain justice. The victim is often overlooked by our criminal justice system, which places greater emphasis on the offender, his behaviour, his rights, and his rehabilitation needs. Thus, it is essential that our country acknowledge the rights of victims of crime. Reforms that would allow common people to use the legal system’s safeguards and remedies are necessary for access to justice in India. Over time, these measures help to curb the increase in crime rates and give the criminal justice system more legitimacy. Victims’ access to the criminal justice in India is gradually improving, but significant challenges remain.

Reforms focused on providing better support, reducing delays, leveraging technology, and educating the public about their rights will help in creating a more victimcentric criminal justice system. The new era offers an opportunity to move towards a more inclusive and efficient legal system, where victims are not sidelined but are empowered to participate fully in their pursuit of justice. 26 N. R. Madhava Menon, Victim’s rights and criminal justice reforms, THE H INDU, Mar. 27, 2006, available at: http://www. hindu. com/2006/03/27/stories/2006032703131000. htm as last visited on 9. 9. 2024.