Asia Pacific Journal of Research Vol: I.

Issue XXXVI, February 2016

ISSN: 2320-5504, E-ISSN-2347-4793

VICTIMS RIGHT TO COMPENSATION INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

Chetankumar T M

Chetan Irannavar
ABSTRACT

In recent years victim compensation in the world has often been viewed as a developmental area in the world of
victim services and assistance. It emerged independently, operated for many years separately from service
networks, and seemed to address different issues and problems. In reality, the evolution of victim compensation
was a key factor in the victim assistance movement. In the early Common Law of Middle England, if a man was
murdered, the mans family was entitled to a werguild of four pounds. Gradually, however as the criminal justice
system was separated from civil proceedings, state reparations began to subside and the state became primarily
responsible for imposing punishment based not only on harm done to individual victims but also harm done to the
king or feudal lord. Traditionally, international law has paid insufficient attention to victims. An explanation for
this can be found in the particular nature of international law. It is need less to point out that the whole
legislative paradigm coupled with lack of judicial determination has exposed numerous flaws of the present legal
system about the compensation therefore there is need for revamping the whole legal system once. At the
international level attention was given to provide justice to the victims. The UDHR, 1948, ICCPR, 1966, and the
Judiciary play a vital role in protecting the rights of the Victims. The concept of victimology is a new trend and
finds its place only in recent importance during 1940s and 1950s. The different countries of the world are having
their own system of protecting the victim interests. In the present scenario it draws the attention both at the
national and international level. This is the right time for the whole world to think in this direction and have their
own comprehensive law on Victims rights and interests.

Keywords : Victims, Rights, Laws, International, Compensation

INTRODUCTION

In every civilized country a criminal commits the crime and the State apprehends the offender and brings
him to trial. If, he found guilty then he is convicted and sentenced to undergo any form of punishment. At this
juncture, some questions arise in mind. Does this complete the wheel of criminal justice? If yes, then what about
the crime victims? Traditionally, it may have been sufficient that the criminal is caught and punished. But, the
modern is to also focus on the victims of crime. It is all very well that the accused is given a fair and just trial, that

Assistant Professor, Raja Lakhamgouda Law College, Belagavi, Karnataka.

Student, 3 Years LL.B., V Sem, Raja Lakhamgouda Law College, Belagavi, Karnataka.

www.apjor.com Page 175

Asia Pacific Journal of Research Vol: I. Issue XXXVI, February 2016
ISSN: 2320-5504, E-ISSN-2347-4793
the guilty are punished, that the convicts and prisoners are given a humane treatment, that jail conditions are
improved and the erstwhile criminals are rehabilitated, but, what about the crime victim? In response to this, the
Honble Supreme Court has observed :

In our efforts to look after and protect the human rights of the convict, we cannot forget the victim or his
family in case of his death or who is otherwise incapacitated to earn his livelihood because of the criminal act of
the convict. The victim is certainly entitled to reparation, restitution and safeguard of his rights. Criminal justice
would look hollow if justice is not done to the victim of the crime. The subject of victimology is gaining ground
while we are also concerned with the rights of the prisoners and prison reforms. A victim of crime cannot be a
forgotten man in the criminal justice system. It is he who has suffered the most. His family is ruined particularly
in case of death and other bodily injury. This is apart from the factors like loss of reputation, humiliation, etc. An
honor which is lost or life which is snuffed out cannot be recompensed but then monetary compensation will at
least provide some solace.1

The increased attention toward victims of crimes in past years has motivated many countries to rethink the
mechanisms used in many sectors of the society who provide assistance and protection to victims of crime. 2 One
of the fundamental principles of justice is the victim's right to compensation for the injuries and losses he has
suffered as a consequence of an offence committed against him. In principle compensation should be paid by the
offender, for he is the one who has caused the damage. In this respect different models may be distinguished. The
victim may sue the offender in a civil court, but there are also models which allow the victim to claim
compensation within the context of the criminal process, namely the adhesion procedure, the compensation order
and a hybrid model combining the adhesion procedure with a compensation measure.3

History and Philosophy of Victimology

The word victimology was coined in 1947 by a French lawyer Benjamin Mendelsohn, by deriving from
a Latin word victima and a Greek word logos. Victimology is basically a study of crime from the point of view
of the victim, of the persons suffering from injury or destruction by the action of another person or a group of
persons. There are references in Manusmriti, the Book of Exodus, and Homers Iliad to compensation being paid
to victims of criminal offences. References to victim compensation are also found in the code of Hummurabi. It is
said that, it was quite common for the early civilization to extract payments for the victims from the offenders,
which process is now known as restitution.4
The picture began to change with modern criminal justice in which the government assumed responsibility
for dispensing justice by bringing the offender to book, but it also meant that, with the appropriation of the fines
to the state coffers, the victim was left with ineffective remedies. During the past three to four decades, several
justifications for initiating victim compensation programmes have been advanced in victimological literature in
the West.
The scientific study of victimology can be traced back to the 1940s and 1950s. Two criminologists,
Mendelsohn and Von Henting, began to explore the field of victimology by creating typologies. They are

1
State of Gujarat v. Honble High Court of Gujarat, (1998) 7 SCC 392
2
Magnus Lindgren and Vesna Nikolic-Ristanovic, Crime Victims: International and Serbian Perspective, First Edition, Published by
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Mission to Serbia, Law Enforcement Department.
3
Marion E.I. Brienen, Ernestine H. Hoegen, Compensation Across Europe: A Quest for Best Practice, International Review of
Victimology, 2000, Vol. 7, pp. 281.
4
V. N. Rajan, Victimology in India Perspectives Beyond Frontiers, A P H Publishing Corporation, New Delhi, 2012, p. 5 & 6.

www.apjor.com Page 176

Asia Pacific Journal of Research Vol: I. Issue XXXVI, February 2016
ISSN: 2320-5504, E-ISSN-2347-4793
considered as the fathers of the study of victimology. These new victimologists began to study the behaviours
and vulnerabilities of victims, such as the resistance of rape victims and characteristics of the types of people who
were victims of crime, especially murder victims.
Mendelsohan in 1937 interviewed victims to obtain information, and his analysis led him to believe that
most victims had an unconscious aptitude for being victimized. He created a typology of six types of victims,
with only the first type, the innocent, portrayed as just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The other five
type all contributed somehow to their own injury, and represented victim precipitation.
Von Hentig in 1948 studied victims of homicide, and said that the most likely type of victim is the
depressive type who is an easy target, careless and unsuspecting. The greedy type is easily duped because his
or her motivation for easy gain lowers his or her natural tendency to be suspicious. The wanton type is
particularly vulnerable to stresses that occur at a given period of time in the life cycle, such as juvenile victims.
The tormentor is the victim of attack form the target of his or her abuse, such as with battered women. Von
Hentigs work provided the foundation for analysis of victim precipitation that is still somewhat evident in the
literature today.
Wolfgangs research of 1958 followed this lead and later theorized that many victim-precipitated
homicides were, in fact, caused by the unconscious desire of the victims to commit suicide. Schafers theoretical
work of 1968 also represented how victimology invested a substantial amount of its energy to the study of how
victims contribute, knowingly or unknowingly, to their won victiminzation, and potential ways they may share
responsibility with offenders for specific crimes.5

Laws Governing Rights of Victim in India

The legislative framework in India regarding compensation to victim of crime can be trace through two
major legislations i.e. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Probations of Offenders Act and Constitution of
India. Under the provisions of code of criminal Procedure the power to award compensation is vested under
section 357. The plain reading of the section shows that sub-section (1) and (3) vests power on the trail court to
award compensation and sub-section (4) gives power even to appellant or revision court to order for
compensation. Sub section (1) empowers the courts to appropriate the whole or any portion of fine recovered for
the purpose mentioned in the clauses to the sub section, under which Clause (b) is most important and of our use .
It demands that claim of compensation must be accompanied by following conditions:
1. Loss or injury suffered
2. Loss or injury must be caused by the offence
3. Such person can recover the compensation in a civil court

Sub section (3) empowers the court, in its discretion, to order the accused to pay compensation even
though fine does not form part of compensation and hence although inserted in 1973 added new positive
dimension to Indian philosophy of compensation.

Probation of Offenders Act vide its section 5 empowers the trail court to order for compensation. The

5
Dr. Krishna Pal Malik, Penology, Victimology and Correctional Administration in India, First Edition, Published by Allahabad Law
Agency, Faridabad (Haryana), 2012, p. 210.

www.apjor.com Page 177

Asia Pacific Journal of Research Vol: I. Issue XXXVI, February 2016
ISSN: 2320-5504, E-ISSN-2347-4793
plain reading of this section clearly shows that the power in case of this Act vests only with the trail court and
non-else. The whole discussion about legislative framework is incomplete until Section 431 and 421 of Cr.P.C. is
read with above two substantive sections. Section 421 provides for means to recover the fine by attachment and
sale of movable property of the offender and also from both movable and immovable as arrears of land revenue.
Section 431 empowers the courts to recover any money (other than fine) payable by virtue of any order made
under as if it were fine if method for its recovery is not expressly provided. As far as the Constitutional scheme is
concern it is to be noted that it is out come of various decision of Supreme Court of India either by reading Part
third rights (in some cases part four as well) with Art. 32, 136 and 142 of Constitution of India which is to be
given either by the state or accuse.

Sentencing policy has, in modern times, come to be regarded largely as a matter involving the offender
and the state. In recent years, however, there has been an increasing awareness that the criminal justice system
could do more for the victims of crime.6

Victims Right and Role of Judiciary

Anyone who is subjected to a criminal act has in general a right to compensation. From an international
and general perspective, there are a number of ways in which a victim can obtain financial reimbursement. He or
she may be compensated through court-order restitutions, a lawsuit for damages, through private insurances or
government compensation plans. A victim can also prohibit criminals from cashing in on their bad name

The principle of payment of compensation to the victim of crime was evolved by Hon'ble S.C. on the
ground that it is duty of the welfare state to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens not only against the
actions of its agencies but is also responsible for hardships on the victims on the grounds of humanitarianism and
obligation of social welfare, duty to protect it's subject, equitable Justice etc . It is to be noted that compensation
by the State for the action of it's official was evolved by the Hon'ble Court against the doctrine of English law:
"King can do no Wrong" and clearly stated in the case of Smt Nilabati Behra v State of Orissa7, that doctrine of
sovereign immunity is only applicable in the case of tortuous act of government servant and not where there is
violation of fundamental rights and hence in a way stated that in criminal matters (of course if there is violation of
fundamental rights) this doctrine is not applicable.

Rudal Sah v State of Bihar8, is the most celebrated case where the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the
state to pay compensation of Rs 35,000 to Rudal Sah who was kept in jail for 14 years even after his acquittal on
the ground of insanity and held that it is violation of Article 21 done by the State of Bihar. The case of Bhim
Singh v State of J&K9, is another important case where Bhim Singh an MLA was arrested by the police only to
prevent him to attended the Legislative Assembly, the Hon'ble Court not only entertained the writ petition of his
wife but also awarded the compensation of Rs 50,000 to be paid by the state.
The case of Meja Singh v SHO Police Station Zira10, is another unfortunate case where this time High Court of
P&H took the cause of victim and awarded the compensation of Rs 25,000 for illegal detention of son of the

6
Lord Cameron, Future Trends in Sentencing Policy The Satisfaction of The Individual Victim Within A System of Public Prosecution,
International Review of Victimology, 1991, Vol. 1, p. 315.
7
(1993 AIR 1960,1993 SCR(2) 581
8
(1983 AIR 1086,1983 SCR(3) 508
9
(AIR 1986 SC 494,1986 Cri L J 192, 1985 (2)SCALE 1117, (1985) 4 SCC 677, 1986(1)UJ 458 SC)
10
(1991 ACJ 439)
www.apjor.com Page 178
Asia Pacific Journal of Research Vol: I. Issue XXXVI, February 2016
ISSN: 2320-5504, E-ISSN-2347-4793
petitioner. This time it was High Court Bombay, which took the cause of the victim in the case of Ravikant Patil
v DG Police11, State of Maharastra where the petitioner was taken handcuffed to court in clear violation of
Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, that is law, as decided in the case of Prem Shanker Shukla v Delhi
Administration12, Custodial Death is another burning issue where the courts have awarded compensation to the
victims of crime and the most important case under this heading is of Mrs. Cardino v UOI13 where although the
accuse was arrested on the charge of misappropriation of some plastic ware and hospital; utensils worth Rs1500
but tortured like hard core criminal and hence he succumbed to the torture. Here when the matter was brought
before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay which gave the compensation of Rs 2,00,000 to be paid by the state.
In the case of Nilabati Behra v State of Orissa14 where the son of petitioner was arrested by the police and
next morning his body was found laying down with several injuries on the railway track, the Hon'ble S.C.
awarded the compensation of Rs 1,50,000 that is to be paid by the State.

International Perspective
Traditionally, international law has paid insufficient attention to victims. This can be found in the
particular nature of international law. The interstate structure of the international community, international norms
are created to respond to states interests and goals.15 Around the world every year millions of victims suffer
severe physical, psychological and financial harm as a result of the deliberate acts of wrongdoers. These victims
are men and women, children and the elderly, the healthy and the infirm, rich and poor. Their suffering is often
ignored or forgotten. It is exacerbated by the justice system that was created to punish the wrongdoer.16

Victimology is increasingly recognized as an international concern of today, across many cultures and
legal systems. The United States is visited by millions of foreign nationals each year, and citizens of the United
States travel and live in virtually every part of the world. As our societies become more global and mobile, it is no
longer possible to confine victim assistance to the borders of a particular country. Crime and victimization have
become transnational, and countries must look beyond their national boundaries to share information, technology,
and resources to assist victims.17

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme was first introduced in the United Kingdom in 1964 as an
experiment on a non-statutory basis to provide ex gratia compensation to the victims of crimes of violence and to
those hurt in their attempts to arrest the offenders and to prevent crimes. Compensation is calculated on the same
basis as damages in civil proceedings & is paid in lump sum rather than a periodic pension. It includes payment
for the pain & suffering caused by the injury & for the loss of earnings or earning capacity & out-of-pocket
expenses. In case of death of victim, the compensation for the loss of income, for the funeral & other expenses is
payable to the widow or to the dependents of the victim.18

11
(1991 ACJ 1060,1990(2)BOMCR 242,(1990)92 BOMLR 173,1991 CriLJ2344)
12
(1980AIR 1535,1980 SCR(3) 855
13
2007 Cri. L. J. 1758
14
(1993 AIR 1960,1993 SCR(2) 581
15
Carlos Fernandez de Casadevante Romani, International Law of Victims
16
Irvin Waller, Justice Even for the Crime Victim: Implementing International Standards, International Review of Victimology, 1989,
Vol. 1, p. 89.
17
New Directions in International Victim Assistance
https://www.ncjrs.gov/ovc_archives/directions/pdftxt/chap18.pdf
18
Offender and State compensation for victims of crime: Two decades of development and change

www.apjor.com Page 179

Asia Pacific Journal of Research Vol: I. Issue XXXVI, February 2016
ISSN: 2320-5504, E-ISSN-2347-4793

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

It was adopted on 10th December, 1948, by all the State Members of the United Nations. This Declaration
declares 30 principles of all human beings, without any discrimination, all the State members have to maintain
these principles of individuals. Article 5 of the UDHR, 1948 deals with, No one shall be subjected to torture or
to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, was adopted by UN General Assembly on December
16, 1966 and came into force with effect from March 23, 1976. All parties to this Covenant assure the rights
regarding punishment and correction of the offenders.
Article 6 : Every human being has the inherent right to life and this right shall be protected by law.
Article 7 : No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.
Article 8(3) : In countries where imprisonment with hard labour may be imposed as a punishment for a
crime, the performance of hard labour in pursuance of a sentence to such punishment by a competent court is not
included, force or compulsory labour.
Article 9(5) : Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable
right to compensation.19
In United States, rights of victims have been given under both Federal laws as well as State Laws. Main
rights of victims are: right to notice, right to be represented , right to be heard, right to protection, right to a
speedy trial, right to restitution, right to privacy or confidentially, right to employment protection, victims right
in juvenile proceeding and victims right when the defendant is mentally ill etc. In England, the rights of victims
were first recognised in 1964 with the efforts of Margery Fry. In 1988 the State Compensation was formalized in
legislation called the Criminal Justice Act came into being. Thereafter Several acts have been enacted in order
to strengthen the position of the victims. The Victims Charter of UK published in 1990. The General Assembly
of the United National in its 96th plenary meeting on 29th November, 1985 made a Declaration of Basic
Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and abuse of power, recognizing that millions of people throughout the
world suffer harm as a result of crime and the abuse of power and that the rights of these victims have not been
adequately recognized and also that frequently their families, witnesses and others who aid them, are unjustly
subjected to loss, damage or injury. The Assembly affirmed the necessity of adopting national and international
norms in order to secure universal and effective recognition of and respect for, the rights of the victims of crimes
and abuse of power. It was declared that the offenders of third parties responsible for their behaviour should,

http://irv.sagepub.com/content/20/1/145.full.pdf+html

19
International Perspective of Compensation
http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/28181/11/11_chapter%204.pdf

www.apjor.com Page 180

Asia Pacific Journal of Research Vol: I. Issue XXXVI, February 2016
ISSN: 2320-5504, E-ISSN-2347-4793
where appropriate, make fair restitution to victims, their families or dependants. This Declaration has been
described is a kind of Magna Carta of the Rights of the Victims worldwide.20
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. Judicial and administrative mechanisms should be established and strengthened where necessary to
enable victims to obtain redress through formal or informal procedures that are expeditious, fair, inexpensive and
accessible. Victims should be informed of their rights in seeking redress through such mechanisms. The
responsiveness of judicial and administrative processes to the needs of victims should be facilitated by: (a)
Informing victims of their role and the scope, timing and progress of the proceedings and of the disposition of
their cases, especially where serious crimes are involved and where they have requested such information; (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; (c) Providing proper assistance to victims throughout the legal process;
(d) Taking measures to minimize inconvenience to victims, protect their privacy, when necessary, and ensure
their safety, as well as that of their families and witnesses on their behalf, from intimidation and retaliation; (e)
Avoiding unnecessary delay in the disposition of cases and the execution of orders or decrees granting awards to
victims. Informal mechanisms for the resolution of disputes, including mediation, arbitration and customary
justice or indigenous practices, should be utilized where appropriate to facilitate conciliation and redress for
victims.21
The UN Declaration has opened upto new vistas in compensatory jurisprudence. Unlike the earlier
international conventions and Declarations, the Declaration of 1985 specifically provides comprehensive
principles related to payment of compensation to the victims of crime and abuse of power. This Declaration deals
with various aspects of victim compensation like the concept of victim, the rights of the victims, the modes of
restitution and other incidental aspects, like social and health care assistance, etc. The Declaration has made a
positive attempt in evolving concrete principles for doing justice to the victims of crime and abuse of power. It
also provides several constructive victim compensation programmes that can be taken up by the international
community to compensate the victims.
Rights of Victims Under Federal Laws Federal Governments have passed many laws to provide the rights
to the victims particularly right of restitution and compensation. The Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982
(VWPA) was considered landmark legislation in 1982 because, for the first time, rights for victims of federal
crimes were established, the act mainly focuses on the manner of awarding compensation to victims. 22 Besides
these Federal enactments, the different States in U.S.A. have also enacted their own laws to provide compensation
and restitution to victims of crime. The court may order a defendant to pay a crime victim for costs relating to
physical injuries, mental health, counseling, lost wages, property lost or damaged or other related costs.

20
Marlene A. Young, The Role of Victim Compensation in Rebuilding Victims Lives
http://www.iovahelp.org/About/MarleneAYoung/RoleOfVictComp.pdf
21
Supra note 19.
22
(i) The fair treatment of victims and witnesses in the federal criminal justice system.
(ii) The right to include victim impact statements in presentence investigation reports.
(iii) New criminal penalties to protect victims and witnesses from intimidation, harassment, and retaliation,
including provisions for civil restraining orders.
(iv) Restitution for the victim.
(v) Consideration of victims interest in bail decisions.

www.apjor.com Page 181

Asia Pacific Journal of Research Vol: I. Issue XXXVI, February 2016
ISSN: 2320-5504, E-ISSN-2347-4793
The restitution is important because it forces the defendant to confront, in concrete terms, harm his or her
actions have caused. 30 Out of 32 states which have provided the victims rights, 18 states amended their
constitutions to provide the right to restitution to victims. The first compensation program was created in 1965,
and nine states were operating such programs by 1972, when the earliest programs providing other types of victim
assistance were established. Most of this money comes from offenders, since a larger majority of states fund their
programs entirely through fees and fines charged against those convicted of crime, rather than tax dollars.
Compensation programs can pay for a wide variety of expenses and loses related to criminal injury and homicide.
Beyond medical care, mental health treatment, funerals, and lost wages, a number of programs also cover crime-
scene cleanup, travel costs to receive treatment, moving expenses, and the cost of housekeeping and child care.
Currently, all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, are operation
compensation programs. (Its worth nothing that a number of European countries, plus Canada, Australia, New
Zealand, and Japan also have victim compensation programs fairly similar to those in the U.S.).
The provision of compensation to the victims of crime started in the United Kingdom under the Criminal
Injuries Compensation Scheme, 1964. A Criminal Injuries Compensation Board was constituted. The basis of the
quantum of compensation is the same as that of damages in civil injuries and the money payable is for pain and
suffering, loss of earning capacity and out of pocket expenses. Under the revised scheme of 1973, it was now
possible to give compensation for injuries caused by one family member to another. The cost involved in
implementing the programmes was enormous. In U.K. a sum of approximately six million pound sterling was
paid in 1976 as compensation for 16,000 claims and there was annual increase of 15% in the costs.
Administrative expenditure itself accounts for 11% of the disbursement. The Criminal Justice Act, 1991 contains
a number of provisions which directly or indirectly encourages a greater role for compensation.23
New Zealand, emerged as the first country to have established a program of compensation to victim of
crime. It enacted the Criminal Injuries Act, 1963. In 1964 a Criminal Injuries Compensation Board was
established to manage the scheme of compensation to victims of crime. The power of the Tribunal to award
compensation is discretionary not only as to the amount of compensation but also to the making of an order of
compensation. The Victims of Offences Act 1987 (1987 No 173) which was repealed by Victims Rights Act
2002 also gave many rights to victims. The Victims Rights Act 2002 has made comprehensive provisions for
rights of victims. The Act aims to improve provisions for the treatment and rights of victims of offences.
Section 4, provides very exhaustive definition of victim.24 Further paragraph (b) provides that for the
purposes only of Sub-Section-7 and 8, it includes (i) a person who, through, or by means of, an offence
committed by another person, suffers any form of emotional harm; and (ii) a parent or legal guardian of a child, or
of a young person, unless that parent or guardian is charged with the commission of, or convicted or found guilty,
of, or pleads guilt to, the offence concerned; and, if, an offence is committed by a person, does not include
another person charged (whether as a principal or party or accessory after the fact or otherwise) with the
commission of, or convicted or found guilty of, or who pleads guilty to,-(i) that offence; or (ii) an offence relating
to the same incident or series of incidents as that crime or offence. Section 6 of the said Act binds the Crown.

23
Supra note 19.
24
It says that the victim means a person against whom an offence is committed by another person; and suffers physical injury, or loss of,
or damage to, property; and a parent or legal guardian of a child, or of a young person, unless that parent or guardian is charged with the
commission of, or convicted or found guilty of, or pleads to the offence concerned; and a member of the immediate family of a person
who, as a result of an offence committed by another person, dies or is incapable, unless that member is charged with the commission of,
or convicted or found guilty of, or pleads guilty to, the offence concerned.

www.apjor.com Page 182

Asia Pacific Journal of Research Vol: I. Issue XXXVI, February 2016
ISSN: 2320-5504, E-ISSN-2347-4793
In part 2 general provisions have been given for treatment and rights of victims. Section-7 provides that
any person who deals with a victim should follow certain principles.25 Section-8 provides that a victim or member
of a victims family who has welfare, health, counseling, medical, or legal needs arising from the offence should
have access to services that are responsive to those needs. In Section-9, said that if a suitable person is available
to arrange and facilitate a meeting between a victim and an offender to resolve issues relating to the offence, a
judicial officer, lawyer for an offender, member of court staff, probation officer, or prosecutor should, if her or
she is satisfied encourage the holding of a meeting of that kind.
In Canada compensation program was first initiated in Ontario in 1967 under The Law Enforcement
Compensation Act. It was re-enacted in 1971 and further amended in 1973 Ontario program granted
compensation both for injuries and death resulting from crimes of violence. Compensation is also granted for
injuries sustained while preventing or attempting to prevent an offence and for lawfully arresting. The Canadian
provisions that govern compensation were amended in 1996, when compensation order provisions were replaced
with restitution order provisions. Earlier it was available only for loss, destruction, or damage of property, the
introduction of restitution order provisions allowed awards for fiscal damages, such as loss of income or support
as a result of bodily harm due to an offence, or relocation expenses. Furthermore, orders of restitution were no
longer required to be initiated by the victim, but could also be ordered by the sentencing court. The Law Reform
Commission of Canada endorsed restitution in 1974. Restitution involves acceptance of the offence as a
responsible person with the capacity to undertake constructive and socially approved acts. It challenges the
offender to see the conflict in values between himself, the victim and society. In particular, restitution invites the
offender to see his conduct in terms of the damage it has done to the victims rights and expectations. It
contemplates that the offender has the capacity to accept his full or partial responsibility for the alleged offence
and that he will in many cases be willing to discharge that responsibility by making amends.26

Conclusion
At international level several Acts provides compensatory relief to the victims but the existing legal
framework in India in relation to right of Victims towards rehabilitation except in the area of providing
compensation, very little has been done either statutorily or through schemes .The development of entitling the
Victim a right to rehabilitation is at an early stage. Lessons can be learnt from and improve upon the diverse,
preliminary efforts towards Victims rehabilitation. Although there will always be debate about what can and
should be offered. It is high time for the legislature to come out with diverse and elevating rehabilitation schemes
which would genuinely benefit the Victim to forget his plight. The present position of Victim Rehabilitation
Schemes in India needs to be revisited. A new specialized legislation needs to be drawn in lines with that of US
and UK in order to render meaningful justice, social and legal and facilitate effective rehabilitation.

25
(a) treat the victim with courtesy and compassion; and
(b) respect the victims dignity and privacy.
26
Cyndi Banks, Victims in the Village: Aspects of Restorative Justice in PAPUA New Guinea, International Review of Victimology,
1999, Vol. 6.
http://irv.sagepub.com/content/6/4/377.full.pdf+html

www.apjor.com Page 183

Asia Pacific Journal of Research Vol: I. Issue XXXVI, February 2016
ISSN: 2320-5504, E-ISSN-2347-4793
References
1. Lindgren Magnus and Nikolic-Ristanovic Vesna, Crime Victims: International and Serbian Perspective,
First Edition, Published by Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Mission to Serbia, Law
Enforcement Department.

2. BRIENEN E.I. MARION, HOEGEN H. ERNESTINE, COMPENSATION ACROSS EUROPE: A QUEST

FOR BEST PRACTICE, International Review of Victimology, 2000, Vol. 7.
3. Rajan V. N., Victimology in India Perspectives Beyond Frontiers, A P H Publishing Corporation, New
Delhi, 2012.

4. Dr. Malik Pal Krishna, Penology, Victimology and Correctional Administration in India, First Edition,
Published by Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad (Haryana), 2012.

5. CAMERON LORD, FUTURE TRENDS IN SENTENCING POLICY THE SATISFACTION OF THE

INDIVIDUAL VICTIM WITHIN A SYSTEM OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION, International Review of
Victimology, 1991, Vol. 1.

6. Casadevante Romani de Carlos Fernandez, International Law of Victims

7. WALLER IRVIN, JUSTICE EVEN FOR THE CRIME VICTIM: IMPLEMENTING INTERNATIONAL
STANDARDS, International Review of Victimology, 1989, Vol. 1.

8. New Directions in International Victim Assistance

https://www.ncjrs.gov/ovc_archives/directions/pdftxt/chap18.pdf

9. Offender and State compensation for victims of crime: Two decades of development and change
http://irv.sagepub.com/content/20/1/145.full.pdf+html

10. INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE OF COMPENSATION

http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/28181/11/11_chapter%204.pdf

11. Young A. Marlene, The Role of Victim Compensation in Rebuilding Victims Lives
http://www.iovahelp.org/About/MarleneAYoung/RoleOfVictComp.pdf

12. BANKS CYNDI, VICTIMS IN THE VILLAGE: ASPECTS OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN PAPUA NEW
GUINEA, International Review of Victimology, Vol. 6, 1999.
http://irv.sagepub.com/content/6/4/377.full.pdf+html

www.apjor.com Page 184