In India’s legal system, victimology—the study of victims and their place in the legal system—has been increasingly recognised. A victim-centric strategy was highlighted in the seminal 154th Law Commission Report (1996), which promoted victim compensation, rehabilitation, and legal representation. As a result, Section 357A, which requires victim compensation plans, was added to the CrPC. Key witnesses were intimidated in the Best Bakery case (2002), which resulted in their initial acquittals, underscoring the critical necessity for witness protection and the right to a fair trial. A precedent for defending victims’ rights was established by the Supreme Court’s involvement and decision to move the trial to Maharashtra. The case and study together highlight how victimology has changed in India and advocate for changes to witness protection, compensation laws, and victim involvement.
What is victimology?
Globally, victimology—the study of victims and their place in the legal system—has become more and more prominent in legal discourse. Criminal justice regimes have historically been offender-centric, emphasising punishment over victims’ interests and rights. However, the 154th Law Commission Report (1996) marked the beginning of a major movement in India towards a victim-centric approach. This report, which emphasized that justice must go beyond the prosecution of perpetrators, was essential in acknowledging the suffering, rights, and rehabilitation needs of victims of a crime. The report established the groundwork for significant legal reforms in India by suggesting measures for witness protection, legal aid, and victim recompense.
Recent developments
A significant advancement in victimology is the recent Supreme Court ruling in Mahabir & Ors. v. State of Haryana, which upholds fair trial norms while defending victims’ rights. Due to procedural errors, including violations of natural justice, the Supreme Court later rejected the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision to reverse an acquittal in this case. By highlighting victim involvement, judicial accountability, and due process, this ruling makes a substantial contribution to victimology.
Reaffirming victim participation in legal proceedings is one of the judgment’s main contributions. The lawsuit started when the deceased’s father filed a revision petition contesting the accused’s acquittal. The High Court’s decision brought attention to the necessity of explicit victim rights within legal frameworks, even if it was legally untenable under Section 401(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which prohibits turning acquittals into convictions.
The CrPC’s Section 372 proviso, which gives victims the right to appeal acquittals, was examined by the Supreme Court. The Court decided that this provision could not be applied retroactively to a 2006 revision petition because it was established in 2009. This emphasises how victim rights must be in line with statutory provisions, strengthening the bounds of victim participation under the law.
The ruling emphasises the value of witness protection, which is a fundamental component of victimology. The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court had violated procedural fairness by depending on a Section 161 CrPC statement rather than sworn trial testimony. It strengthened the conversation on victim protection in trials by emphasizing the need to protect witness testimony against coercion.
Furthermore, the balance between victim rights and the protection of a fair trial is highlighted by the Supreme Court’s order for the accused to be released immediately and for compensation for unjust incarceration to be considered. The ruling guarantees the preservation of due process while enhancing victim engagement.
Recognizing unjust detention and the necessity of compensation is another crucial element. The Court acknowledges the impact of judicial errors on the accused in its discussion, citing D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa. By supporting restorative justice and guaranteeing justice for both victims and those who were unfairly convicted, this ruling broadens the scope of victimology.
The judgement of Mahabir & Ors. v. State of Haryana of the Supreme Court makes a substantial contribution to victimology in India. It guarantees procedural protections against erroneous convictions while reaffirming victim rights. The ruling strengthens the integrity and accountability of the legal system by establishing a precedent for striking a balance between victim participation and fair trial requirements.
Role of public prosecutor
In the case of Mahabir & Ors. v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court examines the duties and responsibilities of the Public Prosecutor’s (PP) in great detail, highlighting the PP’s essential role in the criminal justice system. According to the CrPC, the Public Prosecutor is granted certain statutory responsibilities and privileges, and the Court recognises that they wield a “public office.” The Court emphasises that the office is an independent statutory entity that must operate with impartiality, fairness, and integrity rather than just being an extension of the investigative agency as reported by LiveLaw.
The Court emphasises how important it is for a public prosecutor to strike a balance between finding the guilty, protecting people’ rights, and making sure justice is served fairly. The PP’s function goes beyond simply obtaining convictions; rather, it is to help the court arrive at the right decision. The ruling emphasizes that in order to provide justice for both the prosecution and the accused, a prosecutor should not withhold evidence but rather provide a whole and objective picture.
The Court also condemns some prosecutors’ propensity to suppress exculpatory evidence in order to focus too much on getting convictions. The ruling makes it very evident that a PP must behave in a way that preserves the integrity of the legal system rather than pursuing conviction “somehow or the other.” Even if the defense or the court ignores it, the public prosecutor must alert the court whether the accused is entitled to any benefits under the law.
The Court’s apprehension regarding political meddling in the selection of public prosecutors is another important aspect of the ruling. It challenges the custom of choosing prosecutors based more on political factors than qualifications, contending that only those with strong moral character, legal acumen, and independence ought to be chosen. The State Government is held responsible by the Court for making sure Public Prosecutors adhere to these strict guidelines.
Lastly, the Court admits that judicial workload and oversight might lead to mistakes in the legal process. Nonetheless, it highlights the responsibility of public prosecutors and defense attorneys to rectify judicial errors when they occur. The Court’s landmark decision, which orders the State Government to compensate appellants harmed by prosecutorial errors, reaffirms the notion that justice must be done and seen to be done.
The ruling firmly upholds the Public Prosecutor’s position as an impartial court official tasked with upholding justice rather than just obtaining convictions. It demands adherence to the rule of law, fair prosecution, and nominations based on merit.
The 154th Law Commission Report: an overview
To guarantee a just and equitable legal system, the Law Commission of India, a statutory agency, is tasked with suggesting legal reforms. With a particular focus on victimology, the 154th Law Commission Report, which was submitted in 1996, aimed to revise the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. It recognized that although victims of crimes frequently face social marginalization, emotional distress, and financial difficulty, their issues are often overlooked during the legal process. According to the research, victims’ needs should be addressed methodically, and the justice system should prioritize their rights and welfare.
The establishment of a state-funded victim compensation program was one of the report’s most important suggestions. The report emphasized that victims of crimes frequently experience financial hardship, particularly those from marginalized families. The proposal suggested adding Section 357A to the CrPC, which would require state governments to give victims financial support. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 2009[1] ultimately put this recommendation into practice, making compensation a crucial component of victim justice.
The role of victims in court procedures was another important area of victimology that was covered in the 154th Law Commission Report. Victims have historically not been considered active participants in trials, but rather witnesses. According to the report, victims—especially those impacted by heinous crimes—should be given access to legal counsel and be given the opportunity to actively engage in the legal system. In subsequent legal advancements, this concept gained traction as courts acknowledged victims’ rights to participate in prosecution decisions and appeal acquittals.
The report also underlined the significance of protecting witnesses and victims, acknowledging that victims frequently encounter threats, coercion, and social pressure, particularly in situations involving organized crime, communal violence, and sexual offences. The Witness Protection Scheme of 2018 was influenced by its recommendation to provide a legal framework for witness protection. To ensure that at-risk victims and witnesses can testify without fear, this program now offers security measures like identity concealing, police protection, and relocation.
The foundation for numerous legislative and policy reforms in India was established by the 154th Law Commission Report. The addition of Section 357A to the CrPC, which mandated state-funded compensation plans throughout India, was one of its most important contributions. Its suggestions about victim involvement in trials also had an impact on subsequent rulings that acknowledged victims’ rights to appeal and pursue justice apart from the prosecution.
In order to give survivors of crimes including rape, domestic abuse, acid assaults, and community violence financial support, multiple states have over time established victim compensation schemes. Furthermore, the idea of witness protection—which was initially emphasized in the report—became a reality in 2018 with the Witness Protection Scheme, providing vulnerable witnesses and victims with much-needed security. These changes guarantee that victims are no longer viewed as passive viewers but rather as important participants in the legal system, reflecting a gradual but necessary transition towards victim-centric justice.
The introduction of victimology into India’s legal discourse was made possible largely by the 154th Law Commission Report (1996). Advocates for witness protection, legal counsel, and victim compensation changed the way victims are handled in the court system. The legal foundation for victims has been reinforced by the ensuing reforms, which include legislation protecting witnesses and state-funded compensation.
History
Before this, the fifth law commission of India in the 42nd report dealt with the concept of compensation to the victims of crime in India. The law commission referred to the “three patterns” concept of compensating the victim which is seen the code of criminal procedure of France, Germany, and (Former) Russia. The pattern includes:
- Compensation by the state.
- Compensation by the offender by means of fines or paying certain specific amount.
- Offender’s duty to repair for its damages.
Further the 142nd, 144th, 146th, 152nd, 154th, and 156th report emphasised the concept of compensation for the victims and made certain contribution towards it. As result, the Government of India after considering various reports and recommendations amended the Code of Criminal Procedure code in the year of 2009.
Best Bakery case: A turning point
One of the most notable cases of witness intimidation and a failure to provide justice in India was the case of Zahira Habibullah H. Sheikh and Anr. vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. [(2004) 4 SCC 158], prominently known as the Best Bakery case, which brought to light the systematic disregard for victims in criminal prosecutions. This case, which was based on the Gujarat riots of 2002, revealed the weaknesses of victims in cases of communal violence and showed how a lack of legal protections could result in witness hostility, unfair acquittals, and the denial of justice. By highlighting the importance of witness protection, fair trials, and victim participation in the judicial system, the events that followed this case significantly contributed to the establishment of victimology in India as reported by the National Human Rights Commission.
Fourteen people, all Muslims, were killed by a mob during the post-Godhra riots in Vadodara, Gujarat, when the Best Bakery was set on fire. Primarily due to the intimidation of important witnesses, such as Zaheera Sheikh, a crucial eyewitness who became hostile in court, the first trial ended with the acquittal of all 21 accused. The Supreme Court of India stepped in after a national outcry over the judicial system’s failure in this case. A significant step towards guaranteeing an unbiased and equitable trial was taken when the trial was moved from Gujarat to Maharashtra in a landmark ruling.
The Best Bakery case made a significant contribution to victimology by highlighting the necessity of legislation protecting witnesses Citizens for Justice and Peace was co-petitioner in the case. The Supreme Court recognised that, especially in situations involving organized crime, prominent accused, or communal violence, victims and witnesses frequently experience threats, social pressure, and coercion.
The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 was ultimately the result of this case, which bolstered the call for a formal witness protection structure. This plan ensures that victims and witnesses can testify without fear by providing measures including relocation, police protection, and identity concealing.
The increase in victim participation in court processes was another noteworthy development that was impacted by this case. The case demonstrated how victims were frequently viewed as merely witnesses with little influence over the court system. Later legislative revisions that gave victims the ability to appeal against acquittals and actively engage in trials were made possible by the judiciary’s response to the Best Bakery case, which reaffirmed the notion that victims must have a voice in the legal process.
The case also highlighted how crucial victims’ rights to a fair trial are. A precedent for trial transfers in situations when political or sectarian factors prevent an unbiased hearing was established by the Supreme Court’s decision to move the case to Maharashtra. This reaffirmed the judiciary’s dedication to guaranteeing that victims of crimes, especially those from marginalized and disadvantaged populations, have an equal opportunity to obtain justice as reported in a research published by SSRN.
An important turning point in the development of victimology in India was the Best Bakery case. Crucial legislative and policy changes, such as the implementation of legislation protecting witnesses, enhanced victim rights, and procedures for fair trials, were brought about by the revelation of the criminal justice system’s shortcomings. This case shaped the current understanding of victimology in the Indian legal system by demonstrating that true justice necessitates protecting and empowering the victim in addition to punishing the criminal.
Conclusion
The development of victimology in India, which has been characterized by important legal changes and seminal rulings, highlights the increasing acceptance of victims’ rights in the judicial system. Important legislative changes like Section 357A CrPC resulted from the 154th Law Commission Report, which established the groundwork for victim compensation, witness protection, and active victim engagement. The necessity of justice, due process, and prosecutorial responsibility was further emphasized by cases such as Mahabir & Ors. v. State of Haryana and the Best Bakery trial. By balancing victim rights with fair trial principles, these advancements ensure justice is not just about punishing offenders but also about protecting and empowering victims, ultimately strengthening India’s legal system.
(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this factsheet has been worked on by Yukta Adha)
[1] Amendment number 21 of 2009
Related:
Witness Protection in India: an idea gathering dust
The 2004 Best Bakery Judgement and Its Significance