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 42^nd 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 142^nd, 144^th, 146^th, 152^nd, 154^th, and 156^th 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 Best Bakery Case

The 2004 Best Bakery Judgement and Its Significance

The post Strengthening the rights of victims: Legal milestones and the path ahead appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At a time when the rape and murder case of a 10-year-old Bhopal girl has rocked the nation, with people organising candle marches and demanding justice, another shocking incident has surfaced from Rajgarh district of Madhya Pradesh. Rajgarh is adjacent to state capital Bhopal.

Hearing a rape case of the 17-year-old girl, the sarpanch of Dangarpur village of Narsinghgarh block ordered the survivor’s family to organise a non-vegetarian feast in the village, in a bid to purify her daughter, according to reports.

The 17-year-old girl was allegedly raped by Siyaram, an upper caste man from the same village, four months ago. On the survivor’s complaint, police arrested the accused and sent him to jail.      

“Because the rapist belong to upper caste and the victim belongs to lower caste, it is mandatory for the victim family to organise a feast, if they want to purify the raped girl. Till then, the family will be detached from rest of the village and its day to day affairs,” the sarpanch order read, which was reportedly signed by multiple people.

Later, the signature of the girl’s father was also allegedly taken on the ‘verdict’.

Since the family belongs to the marginalised section of society, they failed to organise the feast in the village. As a result, residents of the village, including nearby villages, started distancing themselves from the family.

Days after the sarpanch’s ‘verdict’, the survivor’s family organised a religious programme (Sundar Kand) at home, in a bid to purify the girl, but neither the villagers turned up nor did they accepted prasad (sweets).

Miffed with the villagers’ behaviour, the family has now knocked the doors of the Women and Child Development (WCD) office and has filed a complaint. The following day, local newspaper widely reported the matter with the version of Rajgarh SP Pradeep Sharma and WCD officer Chandsena Bhire.  

When contacted, Bhire said, “Acting on the complaint, I visited the village and met the family members and the sarpanch. They have been ordered to organise a feast in a bid to purify the girl. I’m preparing a report, based on my findings and will submit it to the official concerned.”    

Based on the news published by a local newspaper, the state Human Rights Commission has taken cognizance of the incident and has ordered an enquiry. It has also sought a report from the Rajgarh collector and SP within three weeks.

‘MAY LEAVE VILLAGE’

Meanwhile, the survivor’s family is living in a fear as also facing isolation from the rest of the village. Talking over phone, the father of the girl, Mahendra Jatav (name changed), said: “Because the rapist belongs to upper caste, the villagers have turned against us, instead of supporting us.”

He further said, “I’m the one who suffered most. My daughter is trying to cope up. We are paying the price, but villagers are making it tough for us. If the situation does not improve, we may leave the village. There is no way out.”   

Commenting on the issue, Rajgarh SP, Pradeep Sharma, assured security and cooperation to the family.

Courtesy: Indian Cultural Forum

The post In Rajgarh, Sarpanch Asks Rape Victim’s Family to Host Non-Veg Feast to Purify Her, Probe on appeared first on SabrangIndia.

  
   Photo Credit: WUNRN

Researched in the context of the victim-friendly provisions in the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, the micro study of 16 cases has found that though there has been some difference in the manner in which cases of sexual assault are handled in Delhi, there still continues to be widespread victim shaming, and lack of support and counseling services for victims.

In an attempt to identify the gaps in the existing procedures and to find out whether the large body of jurisprudence is complying with the reforms in relation to victim-centric procedures and reforms, the legal resource group conducted trial observations of 16 cases of sexual assault in four fast track courts in Delhi between February 2014 to March 2015. In each case, the accused was an acquaintance of the victim – which spanned all age groups between 18-50 years and belong to relatively weak social economic backgrounds.

The findings hold a mirror to society where women are repeatedly subjected to sexual assault at the hands of men who hold a position of dominance over them.

The findings from the research data shows:
•     Pre-trial records suggest formal compliance with timeline and protocol: Within 24 hours after the FIR is registered, the victim is taken for her medical examination, and in a few days, for her S.164, CrPC statement to the Magistrate. The accused are also arrested, and within the span of 2-3 months, the case is taken cognizance of by the Magistrate.
•     Some victims experience obstacles and harassment during registration: Despite an apparent compliance with protocol in pre-trial records, some victim interviews suggest resistance and harassment in registering an FIR, including efforts to dissuade the woman from registering a complaint based on opinions on the veracity of the complaint, or by invoking family values. While there is evidence on successful registration of zero FIR, there is also an instance of refusal of the same. Copies of FIR are not immediately available. The accounts of victims show inconsistency in implementing the law.
•     Medico-forensic procedures not conducted as per MoHFW Guidelines: The medico-forensic procedures, despite the new MoHFW guidelines, show little evidence of any transformation. a) the examination is still not conducted with the informed consent of the victim; b) internal examination of the victims continue, although the victims are not informed of their purpose. While they are a part of medical treatment afforded to the victim, they are also used to make insinuations of her sexual history by making notings on old tears in the hymen; c) express notings about the absence of injuries on the body of the victim also persist, to suggest a lack of resistance to the assault; d) hostility, disbelief and advise to not pursue the case by medical staff reported by at least one victim.
•     Medical examination neglects treatment and counseling: The medical procedures emphasise only those processes that are relevant for the collection of evidence to feed into the trial, and neglect granting continued medical attention to the victim for treatment of injuries incurred during the assault, and counseling. There is no evidence of counseling to victims except in two of the sixteen cases, although required under the guidelines. The counseling provided also does not adhere to the required standards, as it just involves asking the victim what her expectations of the legal proceedings are.
•     Victims/ complainants need legal guidance and support services: Beginning from the point of registering the complaint, the victims/ complainants experience confusion and uncertainty about what to do, what to expect and the logic behind each of the steps in the pre-trial as well as the trial stages. The lack of legal orientation, guidance creates enormous anxiety, leading to undue financial exploitation for gaining elementary legal information, including just obtaining a copy of the FIR. It also compromises the rights of the complainant, as we see later in trial stages, as they don’t avail of a companion during deposition or compensation or indeed, medical treatment. This is a vital gap in the system.
The recommendations for reform of pre-trial procedures, corresponding to the above findings are as follows:
1.   Hospitals/ Medical Guidelines: There appears to be little or no training of the hospital staff on the MoHFW guidelines and protocols based on this data. It is absolutely pressing that trainings areconducted in all hospitals to not just to be acquainted with new procedures, and be alerted to those that are discontinued. Emphasis must be placed on understanding why certain procedures are prohibited and the more importantly, what the current procedures signify.  Only then can the MoHFW guidelines and protocols be adopted in letter and spirit, and translate into attitudinal change and practice.
2.   Quality of trainings of all agencies involved in pre-trial stage: Much greater attention needs to be placed on the quality, curriculum, substance, duration and periodicity of trainings. These must go beyond the symbolic and perfunctory exercises that frequently pass off as trainings. There is a need for monitoring and evaluation of trainings so that the intended impact is tracked or trainings revised as relevant.
3.   Legal orientation/ support services and monitoring of the case: There is a need for a specialized agency such as a one stop crisis centre (providing support services discussed in later), whose role begins from the time of reporting, and includes orienting the victim on her rights. Besides being a necessary response to help victims of sexual assault, a specialized agency enables the victim to navigate the legal procedure, rendering her less vulnerable. It will additionally act as a monitoring body, troubleshooting as and when problems become apparent in a case.

The Trial Stage
In the trial stage, the study was limited to observing the deposition of the prosecutrix in court, since this is the site which most clearly suggests the hostility or sensitivity of the judicial process towards the victim. It is also in respect of the depositions of the victim that the Supreme Court has laid down guidelines in the cases of State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Sakshiv. Union of India, to shield the prosecutrix from the accused as well as the general public, and to place her at ease during her testimony by routing questions through the Presiding Officer, and offering her a chair, water and breaks as and when required. The 2013 Amendments also stipulate that the trial should be completed within a span of 2 months.
This stage was monitored by the researchers through observation of the deposition of the prosecutrix in court. Observations regarding the conduct of proceedings as well as the court environment within which the deposition is conducted were documented. These observations were further supplemented by the personal account of the prosecutrix through interviews.
The findings and recommendations in relation to this part include:
•     Fast-track courts oriented with procedures, but inconsistent in practice: The fast-track courts are overall well-oriented with gender sensitive procedures for conducting rape trials, but court practices vary, showing a degree of inconsistency in the application. One out of the four fast track courts where the cases were monitored demonstrated an exemplary understanding of these procedures, with consistent application, showing that it is entirely possible to implement legislative and judicial guidelines in letter and spirit to make the trial less arduous for victims.
•     Prosecutrix shielded from accused within court, but need for victim-witness protection outside court premises remains: Pursuant to the guidelines in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Sakshi v. Union of India, our observation reveals that all trials were conducted in camera and the testimony of the victim was taken from behind a screen- both important measures to shield the victim from anxiety and intimidation generated by being in physical proximity of the accused. The Vulnerable Witness Deposition Complex achieves this more fully, by designating different physical spaces for the accused and the victim. Yet, these appeared to be insufficient, since we found the accused and his relatives continue to have access to the victim, even within the court precincts in the waiting areas. The access of the accused and his associates to the victim, is one of the complex reasons for compromises or the victims turning hostile. As all the cases that were part of this study related to acquaintance rapes, the accused and his relatives/associates also had access to the victim outside the court premises, pointing to a need for shielding and protection to the victim/witness beyond deposition during the trial.
•     Questions in cross-examination must be routed through the Presiding Officer: The defence questions are inevitably hostile, often sexually explicit, intended to insinuate lack of resistance to imply consent. This practice continues. To counter this, one of the guidelines in Sakshi v. Union of India requires questions in the cross-examination to be routed to the prosecutrix through the Presiding Officer, to prevent harassment and intimidation by the Defence Counsel. This is not an established practice. The practice seems to be followed only when the cross examination gets unacceptably offensive, after the distress of the prosecutrix becomes apparent according to our observation. However, at least one of the four courts that were part of this study, showed more vigilance in this respect. Mandatorily routing cross examination questions through the Presiding Officer would go a long way in minimizing the stress and harassment faced by the prosecutrix during the trial. 
•     Lack of legal orientation on procedure and rights impedes availing remedies under the law: The roles of Presiding Officer and Public Prosecutor are distinct, and even the best practice evidenced in this study indicates that no one is mandated to specially look out for the rights and well being of the prosecutrix. None of the prosecutrices seemed to know about their right to be accompanied by a support person or companion during deposition. Many certainly appeared to need one. The Presiding Officer allowed companions on an ad hoc basis when and if they remembered. The Public Prosecutor only meets the prosecutrix in court, and while she is familiar with the records, she is unaware of the pressures for compromise, the compulsion to re-locate, domestic violence, all of which often occur. Only in the case of one of the prosecutrices did the court refer her case to the Delhi Legal Services Authority for compensation, and she was apparently confused about how to avail of it. A need for a specialized agency to orient, guide the prosecutrix through the legal process, in addition to providing other support services cannot be emphasized enough.
•     Timeline of the trial: Contrary to the stipulation in S.309(2), CrPC of completing rape trials in a period of two months, it was found:
–    The deposition of the prosecutrix alone was not completed within this time period.
–    Delays occur for multiple reasons, including receipt of the FSL reports and systemic factors like increasing case-load, which make delay unavoidable.
–    The minimum time taken to complete just the deposition of the prosecutrix in our data was 77 days (2 months 16 days), with the average time period being 37 weeks (8.5 months).
–    In some cases, the deposition of the prosecutrix continued even after the 15 month period of the study.
The need for reform of all agencies that feed into the trial must be emphasized, as well as a stricter approach to adjournments. Yet, it is unlikely that an entire trial can be completed in two months. Setting a mandatory outer limit will neither be realistic, nor will it fully accommodate the demands of fair trial. The best option recommended is therefore, to conduct day-to-day hearings, and complete the deposition of the victim at the commencement of the trial so as to leave little room for influence and coercion.

Availability of Support Services
The most pressing lacuna that emerges from the study is the absence of support services that enable the victim to access judicial remedies and enable restorative justice outside of the court processes as well. While there is no provision for such support services currently, interviews with victims were most instructive about the nature of support services that were a necessary part of state response to sexual assault. Apart from being essential to restorative justice, such services are vital to enabling victim participation in the legal process and in safeguarding her rights.
•     Compensation available but inaccessible: Currently, the only form of support available to victims of sexual assault from the state is victim compensation, which includes costs incurred by the victim for medical treatment, judicial remedies and other disruptions caused by the assault. Owing to the absence of any actor who is mandated to inform and facilitate the victim’s access to these rights/ procedures, none of the victims were aware of their right to avail compensation. The case of only one victim in the entire study was directed by the court to the Delhi Legal Services Authority for compensation and she was unable to proceed owing to lack of guidance.
•     No pre-trial orientation of the victims: Victims get catapulted in the legal maze upon the occurrence and reporting of an assault. There is no pre-trial orientation of the victims. They walk blindfolded as it were, through the legal maze without knowledge of the objective of any of the steps taken or their role. This undermines ‘access to justice’ as well as informed participation. The Investigation Officer and the Public Prosecutor play distinct roles at different stage, with victim orientation not being part of anyone’s brief. This situation produces anxiety, which further makes victims and their families vulnerable to all influences and coercion, often making compromises seem as a more viable choice (as was evident in some cases in this study).
•     Uninformed participation leads to further exploitation: The noticeable outcomes of uninformed participation that were evident in this study include – random payments by victims to different personnel to gain elementary information about the legal process, lack of informed consent for medical examination, and most importantly, not applying for compensation available to victims under the law.
•     Support services for witness protection: Although compromises are often known to be in the offing, including by the court staff, there is no instance of the Presiding Officers being informed and taking action, including passing restraint orders against the accused. In such cases too, a specialized support group could be the via media for taking appropriate action to stymie pressures and influences.
•     Shelter and counseling to combat stigma and further vulnerability to violence: Victims also experience re-location on account of societal stigma as well as on account of internal pressures from the family. There was evidence of increased control by the family upon the victim after reporting sexual assault. Our research shows some evidence of increased domestic violence after reporting sexual assault. An incident of sexual assault triggers external and internal pressures rendering women more vulnerable, exposing them often to further victimization. In such circumstances, individual and family counseling, guarantee of safe shelter, and other support services must be available to help the victim recover. These however are not available currently.
 
No means for protection outside the courtroom
Even while there are provisions inside a courtroom, such as the presence of a prosecuting officer to funnel through the questions being asked of the victim and putting up of a green screen between the accused and victim to prevent intimidation, there is no means to protect them outside the courtroom.Since the accused is often known to the family of the victim, there is widespread intimidation and often pressure to settle the matter. Most victims relocate due to social stigma, rendering them even more vulnerable.
Being emotionally and financially dependent on her family, the victims face increased vulnerability and lose the power to negotiate.While a green screen might shield a woman from having to make eye contact with a man who assaulted her, outside the courtroom, both are made to share the same waiting area, and in some cases they even took the same mode of public transport to arrive at the court.
“There is no point putting a green screen up in a courtroom if everywhere else there is eye contact, intimidation, threat and coercion,” said senior advocate Rebecca John. “Somewhere the law has failed the victim because she doesn’t get the right kind of assistance.”

What happens before the trial
In the pre-trail stage, even while the police claim all the procedures are in order, in reality, quite often the police itself attempts to dissuade the victim from filing a FIR, the study found. Even when a case is filed, there are delays in providing a copy of the FIR to the victim, who in some instances had to pay to obtain it.
According to the study, in most of the cases the medical examination was not conducted in consonance with Ministry of Health and Family Welfare guidelines, with some victims even facing hostility from the medical staff. In one of the cases, according to Mehra, a 50-year-old was harassed and told that she was lying about being assaulted because “at her age, she couldn’t be raped.”

Victim intimidation
Another area where the reforms are failing is in the cross-examination of victims – who are also the witnesses – which remains highly hostile with the defence attorney attempting to unsettle the victim. In some of the cases observed for the study, the questions were so hostile that the victims broke down and left the room.
Even though the questions are required to be routed through a presiding officer, they often do not have control over the kind of questioning that takes place of the rape victim. “Not because the presiding officer is not sympathetic, but the hostility she faces in the cross examination is not at all unusual, because we hear that all the time,” John added.
Citing an example from the study, in one instance the defence counsel demanded to know from the victim through the presiding officer: ‘At the time of penetration, did you cry with your eyes?’ In another manner of intimidation, defence counsels often circle the victim. According to Mehra, even though the presiding officer was strict to make sure the defence counsels stood in their places in one of the cases observed, in the majority, this does not happen.

Unrealistic time frame set for trials
The 2013 amendments also stipulate that the trail should be completed within a span of two months, “which is completely unrealistic,” the study found. The PLD study – the scope of which was limited to the deposition of the victim in court – found that not even the testimony could not be completed in that time frame, which on an average lasted for about eight-and-a-half months. There are two forensic labs in Delhi, said Mehra, which means that there is are substantial delays in getting results and add to that the case load of the courts, the timeline set for the trails is highly unrealistic.
A massive gap has been observed in the support services that enable the victim to access judicial remedies and counseling services.

Compensation
Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure holds that compensation should be given to victims of crime irrespective of whether there is a conviction or not, says PLD. “Acquittal doesn’t necessarily mean that a crime hasn’t occurred and the compensation depends upon the socio-economic status of the convict and on whether he is able to compensate the victim,” he added. Thus, the provision puts the responsibility on the state to do so.In most of the cases, the victims cannot afford to have a counsel, and hence fall back upon the legal services authority. But the study found that victims are not informed that they may apply to district legal service authority to get that compensation.
Under the provision, the compensation is available at two states – at the start of the case as an interim relief, which is then followed by a final compensation. However, according to Satish, there exists a myth that women file false cases to take the benefit of this interim relief and then turn hostile.
At present, the Legal Services Authority is required to assist the accused in getting legal aid as well as provide victim compensation, help them in getting a counsel and be their support system.
 

The post Rape Trials Continue to be Conducted with Widespread Victim Intimidation: Study appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The internet has erupted in fury after the sentencing of Brock Turner, a star athlete for the Stanford University swim team, who was convicted of three sexual offences, and more specifically of assaulting an unconscious, intoxicated 23-year-old woman behind a dumpster. Judge Aaron Persky only sentenced Turner to six months in county jail, noting that a harsher sentence would have a “severe” impact on him.

The victim’s court statement to Turner – a powerful, harrowing 12-page account of the impact the crime has had on her – went viral, with more than 13m views on Buzzfeed alone. So too, did a letter by Turner’s father, defending his son – lamenting how his life should not be ruined by “20 minutes of action”.

A letter by Turner’s female friend, Leslie Rasmussen, was also released, claiming “rape on campuses isn’t always because people are rapists”. Cue further internet furore.

Online campaigns to recall Judge Persky have earned over 500,000 signatures. Think pieces, blog posts, CNN videos, and spoofs by The Onion have been circulated and recirculated on social media, fuelled by vigorous discussions on Facebook and Twitter – marked by hashtags like #BrockTurner and #Stanfordrapevictim.

Talking about rape

As a researcher studying the impact of social media on discussions about rape, I am watching a spectacular case study unfold in real time. As an activist, it feels like one case has finally sparked the conversation we need to have about sexual assault – a crime which affects millions of people. And as a rape survivor myself, it feels like for once, the victim’s voice is being publicly heard and valued.
 

 
When my own rape took place eight years ago in Belfast, a much smaller scale media flurry ensued. Like the recent Stanford victim, I found myself Googling news stories on my assault, and felt the surreal displacement of reading what complete strangers were saying publicly about something very personal which had happened to me. And yet, nowhere in any of that coverage was there a place for myself, the victim, to speak.

Traditional media provides little platform for the victim’s side of the story to be heard. There is an assumption we are weak, ashamed, our lives ruined. And when there is the opportunity to speak, we are expected to summarise within a few soundbites, a brief interview, or a short number of words the enormity of an event that has changed our lives forever.

Daytime talk shows and news programmes may provide exclusive interviews with “brave” survivors, but often these focus on the individual emotional suffering of their experience, without linking their case to larger systemic problems in how our society handles sexual assault. And yet, who else but the survivors can provide firsthand knowledge of the many ways in which our criminal justice systems, our educational institutions, and our public discourses fail to adequately address the reality of rape and sexual assault?

Helping to heal

What is remarkable about the Stanford assault victim’s statement is that it was circulated uncut, at 7,244 words, and that it tells her whole story on her own terms. In so doing, it provides a poignant, elegant, undiminished account of the many small and big injustices rape survivors have to face on a daily basis. Despite its length, within the course of a few days, millions had read her statement and were continuing to share and comment on it.

That is the power of social media. Unlike television, radio, or print journalism, there is no concern over column inches or expensive airtime, so individual writing can be expansive and more thorough. Social media can document the much longer term, often lifelong impact of rape on a survivor’s life.

It is clear from my own research, that social media allows readers to connect the dots, between their own experience and the ones they read about, which can be an important part of the healing process. And without social media, we may never have known about the many women who came forward with allegations against Bill Cosby.

In the case of Brock Turner, social media has amplified the many thoughts of the public on all sides of the story. Feminists and rape survivors have been vocal in support of the victim, but so too, have “meninists” and rape apologists in undermining her claims. Likewise, we are hearing from legal scholars and racial inequality activists, comparing Brock Turner’s sentence to those of black men unjustly imprisoned for rape or black men found guilty in similar circumstances.

Regardless of your own stance, these are all legitimate voices and the opinions of real people – the same people who might be serving on a jury, or reacting to a rape allegation and choosing to believe or ridicule it.

These recent outpourings on social media have served as a barometer for what the general public actually thinks about rape. Due to its intersections on class, privilege, criminal justice, and elite institutions, this particular rape has ignited a widespread and furious debate – but one which, most importantly, has at its centre a “voice” from the victim herself. And in that sense, this case is a game changer.

This article originally appeared on The Conversation

The author is a PhD researcher in the Department of Media and Communications, London School of Economics and Political Science.

The post Stanford sexual assault: how social media gave a voice to the victim appeared first on SabrangIndia.