Essay Topics
Types of Essays
Essay Checklist
Word Counter
Readability Score
Essay Rewriter
The contribution of judiciary to redress the claims of victims of crime is no less significant. The higher courts have played a dominant role in assuring compensatory justice to the victims of crime. While awarding such compensatory relief, they have exercised due care and caution to ensure that people's faith in judicial process is not shattered and the victims protective rights are not denied to them. Some of the landmark judgments of the Supreme Court ensuring restorative justice to victims of crime reflect the growing concern of judiciary to protect the rights of victims. Elaborating the scope of award of compensation to victim of crime under section 358 of Cr. P.C, Justice V.Y. Chandrachud CJI (as he then was), in Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar, observed that a person is entitled to compensation for the loss or injury caused by the offense, and it includes the wife, husband, parent and children of the deceased victim. The Apex Court in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab enumerated the factors which the courts should take into consideration while ordering award of compensation to the victim of crime. These factors include capacity of the accused to pay, nature of the offense and the nature of injury suffered by the victim as also the overall effect of crime on the victim's familial and social life and emotional or financial loss caused to him/her. The Court ruled that the quantum of compensation must be reasonable, depending upon the facts, circumstances and justness of victim's claim. The accused must be given reasonable time for payment of compensation and if necessary, it may be ordered to be paid in installments. In Bhim Singh v. State of J. & K., the Apex Court observed that "compensation for illegal arrest and detention is an area which unearthed new doctrines pertaining to compensatory jurisprudence in India. In this case, the appellant was a Member of the J &K. Legislature Assembly who was arrested by the police in connivance with the local A.D.M. while on his way to attend the assembly session. He was maliciously and deliberately arrested and detained in police custody in order to prevent him from attending the assembly session. Allowing the petition, Justice Chinnappa Reddy, speaking for the Apex Court observed that where a person has been arrested and detained with a malicious and mischievous intent and his legal and constitutional rights are invaded, the malice and the invasion is not washed away by his being set free. The court has the jurisdiction to order compensation to the victim. The State was therefore, directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50, 000/- to the petitioner for the violation of his legal and constitutional right. The question of award of compensation to a victim of rape came up for adjudication before the Supreme Court in the historic Bodhisatva Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty's case. The Court in this case noted: "Rape is a crime not only against the person of a woman; it is a crime against the entire society. It destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional crisis. It is, therefore, a most dreaded crime. It is violative of the victim's most cherished right, namely right to life, which includes right to live with human dignity as contained in Art. 21 of the Constitution." The Court ordered that the accused shall pay an interim compensation of Rs. 1000/- per month to the victim (woman) of his crime (i.e. rape) during the entire period of trial proceedings. The Court further ruled that "compensation to victim under such conditions will be justified even when the accused was not convicted. In State of Maharashtra v. Christian Community Welfare Council of India,' the Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the compensation paid by the State to the victim can be recovered from the guilty officer. Justice Hedge, speaking for the court held that it will depend on the fact whether the alleged misdeed by the officer concerned was committed in the course of the discharge of his official duties and whether it was beyond or in excess of his lawful authority. If it was found that the appellant officers did cause the death of the deceased and exceeded their lawful authority, then they cannot escape the liability to compensate the heirs of the deceased victim. In R. Gandhi v. Union of India, the District Collector of Coimbatore had recommended that the State Government shall pay Rs. 33,19,003/- as compensation to those families of Sikhs and others living in Coimbatore, who were victims of arson and rioting in the wake of assassination of the former Prime Minister of India, Shri Rajeev Gandhi. The High Court of Madras upheld the order of the District Collector. Justice S.A. Kadar of the Court observed: "Legally and morally by all canons of fair play, by all principles of justice, equity and good conscience, the State of Tamil Nadu is bound to pay compensation to victims as assessed and recommended by this senior officer i.e. the Collector of Coimbatore." In yet another landmark case on victim's compensatory relief, namely, D.K. Basil v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court, inter alia made the following observation: "The monetary and pecuniary compensation is an appropriate and indeed an effective arid sometimes perhaps the only suitable remedy for the Redressal of the established infringement of the fundamental right to life of a citizen by the public servants. The State is vicariously liable to which the defense of sovereign immunity is not available and the citizen must receive the amount of compensation from the state; which shall have the right to be indemnified from the wrongdoer." The Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Chalia Ramakrishna Reddy, relying on its earlier decision in D.K. Basu, awarded Rs. 1, 44,000/- as compensation against the State Government for death of a person caused while he was in judicial custody. Rejecting the defense plea that the prisoner was put in jail in exercise of State's sovereign function, the Court ruled that the concept of sovereign power is not an exception to the right to freedom of life, and constitutional guarantee of right to live overrides the theory of state immunity. In Delhi Democratic Working Women Forum v. Union of India seven military jawans raped six village girls who were traveling by train. The court directed the Central Government to pay Rs. 10000/- to each victim as compensation and ordered that the names and identity of the victimized girls be kept secret to save them from social stigma. The court also directed the National Women Commission to prepare a rehabilitation scheme for such victims and expressed the need for setting up of a Criminal Injuries Compensation Board which should decide the quantum of compensation to be paid to victims of rape after taking into consideration their shock, suffering as well as loss of earning due to pregnancy and the expenses of child birth, if caused as a result of rape. In the case of SAHELI (a women social activist organization) the Apex Court directed the Delhi administration to pay Rs.75, 000/- as exemplary compensation to the mother of a nine year old boy who died due to beating by police officer while extracting information from him regarding the offense. The dispute in this case was related to the land lord (house owner) trying to oust the appellant (mother of the deceased boy) from his house and the police was allegedly favoring the land lord.
Essay Writing Checklist
The following guidelines are designed to give students a checklist to use, whether they are revising individually or as part of a peer review team.
Introduction
  • Is the main idea (i.e., the writer's opinion of the story title) stated clearly?
  • Is the introductory paragraph interesting? Does it make the reader want to keep on reading?
Body Paragraph
  • Does each body paragraph have a clear topic sentence that is related to the main idea of the essay?
  • Does each body paragraph include specific information from the text(including quoted evidence from the text, if required by the instructor)that supports the topic sentence?
  • Is there a clear plan for the order of the body paragraphs (i.e., order of importance, chronology in the story, etc.)?
  • Does each body paragraph transition smoothly to the next?
Conclusion
  • Is the main idea of the essay restated in different words?
  • Are the supporting ideas summarized succinctly and clearly?
  • Is the concluding paragraph interesting? Does it leave an impression on the reader?
Overall Essay
  • Is any important material left unsaid?
  • Is any material repetitious and unnecessary?
  • Has the writer tried to incorporate "voice" in the essay so that it has his/her distinctive mark?
  • Are there changes needed in word choice, sentence length and structure, etc.?
  • Are the quotations (if required) properly cited?
  • Has the essay been proofread for spelling, punctuation, grammar, etc.?
  • Does the essay have an interesting and appropriate title?
The Judicial Trend on Compensatory Relief to Victims in India
Trending Essay Topics
Explore today's trending essay topics:
Reference
Feel free to use content on this page for your website, blog or paper we only ask that you reference content back to us. Use the following code to link this page:
Terms · Privacy · Contact
Essay Topics © 2019

The Judicial Trend On Compensatory Relief To Victims In India

Words: 1261    Pages: 5    Paragraphs: 21    Sentences: 75    Read Time: 04:35
Highlight Text to add correction. Use an editor to spell check essay.
              The contribution of judiciary to redress the claims of victims of crime is no less significant. The higher courts have played a dominant role in assuring compensatory justice to the victims of crime.
             
              While awarding such compensatory relief, they have exercised due care and caution to ensure that people's faith in judicial process is not shattered and the victims protective rights are not denied to them. Some of the landmark judgments of the Supreme Court ensuring restorative justice to victims of crime reflect the growing concern of judiciary to protect the rights of victims.
             
              Elaborating the scope of award of compensation to victim of crime under section 358 of Cr. P. C, Justice V. Y. Chandrachud CJI (as he then was), in Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar, observed that a person is entitled to compensation for the loss or injury caused by the offense, and it includes the wife, husband, parent and children of the deceased victim.
             
              The Apex Court in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab enumerated the factors which the courts should take into consideration while ordering award of compensation to the victim of crime. These factors include capacity of the accused to pay, nature of the offense and the nature of injury suffered by the victim as also the overall effect of crime on the victim's familial and social life and emotional or financial loss caused to him/her.
             
              The Court ruled that the quantum of compensation must be reasonable, depending upon the facts, circumstances and justness of victim's claim. The accused must be given reasonable time for payment of compensation and if necessary, it may be ordered to be paid in installments.
             
              In Bhim Singh v. State of J. & K. , the Apex Court observed that "compensation for illegal arrest and detention is an area which unearthed new doctrines pertaining to compensatory jurisprudence in India. In this case, the appellant was a Member of the J &K. Legislature Assembly who was arrested by the police in connivance with the local A. D. M. while on his way to attend the assembly session.
             
              He was maliciously and deliberately arrested and detained in police custody in order to prevent him from attending the assembly session. Allowing the petition, Justice Chinnappa Reddy, speaking for the Apex Court observed that where a person has been arrested and detained with a malicious and mischievous intent and his legal and constitutional rights are invaded, the malice and the invasion is not washed away by his being set free.
             
              The court has the jurisdiction to order compensation to the victim. The State was therefore, directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 50, 000/- to the petitioner for the violation of his legal and constitutional right.
             
              The question of award of compensation to a victim of rape came up for adjudication before the Supreme Court in the historic Bodhisatva Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty's case. The Court in this case noted:
             
              "Rape is a crime not only against the person of a woman; it is a crime against the entire society. It destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional crisis. It is, therefore, a most dreaded crime. It is violative of the victim's most cherished right, namely right to life, which includes right to live with human dignity as contained in Art. 21 of the Constitution. "
             
              The Court ordered that the accused shall pay an interim compensation of Rs. 1000/- per month to the victim (woman) of his crime (i. e. rape) during the entire period of trial proceedings. The Court further ruled that "compensation to victim under such conditions will be justified even when the accused was not convicted.
             
              In State of Maharashtra v. Christian Community Welfare Council of India,' the Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the compensation paid by the State to the victim can be recovered from the guilty officer. Justice Hedge, speaking for the court held that it will depend on the fact whether the alleged misdeed by the officer concerned was committed in the course of the discharge of his official duties and whether it was beyond or in excess of his lawful authority.
             
              If it was found that the appellant officers did cause the death of the deceased and exceeded their lawful authority, then they cannot escape the liability to compensate the heirs of the deceased victim.
             
              In R. Gandhi v. Union of India, the District Collector of Coimbatore had recommended that the State Government shall pay Rs. 33,19,003/- as compensation to those families of Sikhs and others living in Coimbatore, who were victims of arson and rioting in the wake of assassination of the former Prime Minister of India, Shri Rajeev Gandhi.
             
              The High Court of Madras upheld the order of the District Collector. Justice S. A. Kadar of the Court observed: "Legally and morally by all canons of fair play, by all principles of justice, equity and good conscience, the State of Tamil Nadu is bound to pay compensation to victims as assessed and recommended by this senior officer i. e. the Collector of Coimbatore. "
             
              In yet another landmark case on victim's compensatory relief, namely, D. K. Basil v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court, inter alia made the following observation:
             
              "The monetary and pecuniary compensation is an appropriate and indeed an effective arid sometimes perhaps the only suitable remedy for the Redressal of the established infringement of the fundamental right to life of a citizen by the public servants. The State is vicariously liable to which the defense of sovereign immunity is not available and the citizen must receive the amount of compensation from the state; which shall have the right to be indemnified from the wrongdoer. "
             
              The Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Chalia Ramakrishna Reddy, relying on its earlier decision in D. K. Basu, awarded Rs. 1, 44,000/- as compensation against the State Government for death of a person caused while he was in judicial custody. Rejecting the defense plea that the prisoner was put in jail in exercise of State's sovereign function, the Court ruled that the concept of sovereign power is not an exception to the right to freedom of life, and constitutional guarantee of right to live overrides the theory of state immunity.
             
              In Delhi Democratic Working Women Forum v. Union of India seven military jawans raped six village girls who were traveling by train. The court directed the Central Government to pay Rs. 10000/- to each victim as compensation and ordered that the names and identity of the victimized girls be kept secret to save them from social stigma.
             
              The court also directed the National Women Commission to prepare a rehabilitation scheme for such victims and expressed the need for setting up of a Criminal Injuries Compensation Board which should decide the quantum of compensation to be paid to victims of rape after taking into consideration their shock, suffering as well as loss of earning due to pregnancy and the expenses of child birth, if caused as a result of rape.
             
              In the case of SAHELI (a women social activist organization) the Apex Court directed the Delhi administration to pay Rs. 75, 000/- as exemplary compensation to the mother of a nine year old boy who died due to beating by police officer while extracting information from him regarding the offense. The dispute in this case was related to the land lord (house owner) trying to oust the appellant (mother of the deceased boy) from his house and the police was allegedly favoring the land lord.
India Essay Law Essay 
Tip: Use our Essay Rewriter to rewrite this essay and remove plagiarism.

Add Notes

Have suggestions, comments or ideas? Please share below. Don't forget to tag a friend or classmate.
clear
Formatting Help
Submit