Concept of Victimology in India

CONCEPT OF VICTIMOLOGY IN INDIA

Victimology is science of study of the relationship between victims and violators of law or offenders. Government has recently reinforced this political commitment in the form of funds for the National Association of Victim Support Schemes (NAVSS). In 1964, when the United Kingdom became one of the 1st countries to establish a policy commitment to victims of crime in the form of criminal injuries compensation Board. The reports of 1st and 2nd British Crime Surveys have begun to shed some light on the nature of the relationship between victims and offenders. In particular, attention has been paid to the attitude that victims have towards the treatment of offenders. A

Law Inadequate

in favour of victims

The victim is the forgotten man of our criminal justice system. He sets the criminal law in to motion but then goes into oblivion. The present code of criminal procedure does not recognize the right of victim to take part in the prosecution of the case instituted on the basis of police report. The victim is merely a witness in a State versus case. He has no rights to prefer appeal against the order of acquittal of the accused by trial court in a criminal case started by State. The State reserves the discretion not to prefer and also to withdraw from the prosecution even in heinous offences. The victim of crime becomes the victim of our criminal justice system when the political motivated investigation agency or prosecuting agency shows lack of interest or apathy in the matter of investigation or prosecution on extraneous consideration. Innovative approach

of apex court.

The Supreme Court has forged new tools, devised new methods and adopted new strategies for the purpose of making fundamental rights meaningful even to the victims of crime of crime in AIR 1995 SC 14, the Supreme Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to suspend and start disciplinary action against two police officers and one

medical officer for making perfunctory investigation of rape case to pay the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation. There is plethora of decisions, where Supreme Court awarded compensation to the victims, whose plight was brought to the notice of the apex court either by themselves or by way of public interest litigation. Millions of victims of crime, who cannot approach the apex court out of ignorance of lack of resources are still crying for justice with the aim of protecting the human rights of victim in our criminal justice system and to fulfill the constitutional obligation. The Supreme court should ask the Government to confer jurisdiction on the criminal courts by making statutory provision for the compensation of the victims of crime, irrespective of whether the accused is convicted or not and to make statutory provision for participation of the victim in prosecution, along with prosecuting agency in a criminal case instituted on report of police. Compensation & the need for sensitization of judiciary Legislation conferred jurisdiction on the criminal courts under section 357(3) of the code of criminal procedure for awarding unlimited amount of compensation to the victims at the time of passing judgment of conviction. This provision is not ancillary to other provisions of criminal procedure code, but in addition thereto. By the landmark judgment in Hari Kisan’s case AIR 1988 SC 2127 Supreme Court not only awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the victim, but also directed the subordinate criminal courts to exercise the power of awarding compensation to the victims of offences in such a liberal way that the victims may not have to rush to the civil courts for compensation to the victims. Unfortunately, the subordinate judiciary is rarely invoking this provision to award compensation to the victims, where the accused persons are acquitted of the charge on benefit of doubt or on any technicalities of laws. The General Assembly of the United Nation’s has recommended payment of compensation to the victims of crime by the State, when compensation is not fully available from the offender or other sources. Unfortunately, the victims of communal riots, dacoity, arson and rape are not getting compensation in our present justice system. Since the State is under duty to protect the life, liberty and security of its

citizens, it is bound to pay compensation to the victims of crime irrespective of whether the accused is convicted or acquitted of the criminal charge. As the government is indifferent to the crying need of the victims, the apex court directed the Government to set up a criminal injuries compensation Board, under the supervision of criminal courts for awarding compensation to victims of all crimes including rape or dacoity, in addition to the directions given to National Commission for women to evolve a proposal for rehabilitation and compensatory justice to rape victims. Payment of compensation to the victims of crime for any injury caused to him has not been institutionalized under the Indian Penal Laws. Nor any legal right to be compensated has been created in favour of the victim. In case of irreversible injury monetary compensation is the sole effective remedy. In India there is neither a comprehensive legislation nor a statutory scheme providing for compensation by State to offender to victims of crime. The legislative vacuum of a legal right to monetary compensation for violation of human rights has been supplemented by the higher judiciary by developing a parallel constitutional remedy. In AIR 1983 SC 1086 the Supreme Court for the first time in Rudal Sah Vs. State of Bihar made it categorically clear that the higher judiciary has the power to award compensation for violation of fundamental rights through the exercise of writ jurisdiction and evolved the principle of compensatory justice in the annals of human rights jurisprudence. In Oraon Vs. State of Bihar the Supreme Court direct State of Bihar to pay the sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation to Bhama Oraon who was illegally detained for 6 years and kept in mental hospital when he was not in same. In Sebastain Vs. Union of India AIR 1984 SC 1826, on account of failure of Government to produce in habeas corpus petition filed by wives, apex court awarded cost of Rs. 1 lac to be given to wife of each of detenne. Compensation to Rape victims : Right of the rape victim to receive compensation flows from Art.21 of the constitution. Every court has jurisdiction to grant compensation not only at the final stage of trial but also to award interim compensation at any interlocutory stage of trial in view of reported judgment in AIR 1996 SC 922. In 1995(1) SCC 14 - Supreme Court in case of Delhi Domestic Working Women’s

Forum Vs. Union of India, indicated a scheme to award compensation to rape victim both at the time of trial i.e., interim compensation to rape victim and at the end of the trial. The Supreme Court suggested the establishment of criminal injuries compensation Board under Art. 38(1) of the Constitution of India. The rape victim shall be paid compensation by this Criminal injuries compensation board or the court and while awarding compensation the following particulars are to be taken into account to calculate the compensation amount i.e., pain, suffering and shocks experienced by the victims and also loss of earnings due to pregnancy and the expenses of child birth if this occurs as a result of the rape.. Unfortunately till now this criminal injuries compensation Board has not been established by the Central Government. In D.K. Basu Vs. State of west Bengal ( 1997) I SCC P-4, the landmark judgment Supreme Court has laid down number of guidelines to prevent custodial violence including rape, and has recognized that custodial rape could be compensated as the same violated Rights to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In bodhi Sattra Goutham Vs. Subhra Chakraborthy the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the court of session have every authority to award interim compensation if prime facie case against the accused has been established that a person had sexual relationship with the prosecutrix on false assurance of marriage. Supreme Court has directed the guilty person to pay Rs.1000/- pm as interim compensation to the prosecutrix during pendency of case. This judgment is a precedent for granting interim compensation to the rape victims. In case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Madhukar N. Mardikar (1991 ) I SCC 57 Supreme court held that even a prostitute has a right to privacy and no person can rape her just because she is a woman of easy virtue. The duty of Court while trying rape cases : The police, court and lawyers should come forward to provide all sorts of assistance to victims of rape. Courts must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. The court should examine the broader probabilities of case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in witness statements. The court should also provide adequate financial assistance to the victim of rape. It could also award interim compensation as in Rathinam / State of Gujarat the

court awarded interim compensation to tribal woman who was illegally raped in police custody in the presence of her husband. Sum of Rs.50,000/- was provided by the State of Gujarat. Apart from providing financial assistance the victim should be provided medical, social, psychological assistance which would help her to come out of her trauma. U/s. 18(3) of the protection of Human Rights Act 1993 National Human Rights Commission has powers to advance the cause of compensatory justice to the victims of Torture. There is ample scope of law reform to protect the victims of sexual offences in general and the victims of rape in particular. Evidence Act be amended suitably. Evidence of victim be taken in close room. Defense counsel be prohibited from putting question on past character of victim. Judges and prosecutors may be sanitized to the need of evaluation of evidence of victims of rape. Though there is a need of legislation in the field, it is equally essential to implement the existing provisions. The people should be aware of these laws for their effective implementation. All concern responsible citizen should take effective steps to implement the provisions under law. We have to activate our Indian society of victimology. The nongovernmental organization on 14th August, 1992 has formed a society called as Indian society of victimology in Madras many social scientists, professionals, research scholars, students & criminal justice functionaries interested in cause of victims of crime India, a convened by Prof. Chockalingam & decided to start working under the society named as “ Indian Society of victimology”. He was 1st unanimously elected president . On 18/09/94 former Judge of Supreme Court of India V.R. Krishna Iyer has inaugurated the same. There were 5 symposia organized by Indian society of victimology. First Biennial conference was orgainsed at Madras from 12th & 14th August, 1994. Govt. of Tamilnadu has set up a victim assistance fund in April, 1995. Tamilnadu is 1st state in India to set up such a fund to assist victims of violent crimes in pursuance of the recommendation of Indian society of victimology.

There is a need to see for the criminal Justice reforms and victims’ rights organizations to become more active. Govt. of Maharashtra women and child development Dept., various Boards and women commission should become active in formation of the group to help such victims of crime. On 14th August 1992, many social Scientists, Professors, Research Scholars, Students & Criminal Justice functionaries interested in cause of victims of crime met at Dept. of victimology at University of Madras in India and decided to start an organization in the name of Indian Society of victimology . He was elected unopposed as President.

Victimology Until recently, victims were not studied. They tended to be seen as passive recipients of the criminal’s greed or anger, “in the wrong place at the wrong time.” The study of victims, known as victimology, has resulted in theoretical and research studies, and an awareness of the victim has grown in the public consciousness. There is now recognition that victims have traditionally not been treated particularly well by the criminal justice system. Victims suffer not only during the crime, but that there are also sometimes physical and psychological complications. Perhaps the first theory to explain victimization was developed by Wolfgang in his study of murders in Philadelphia. Victim precipitation theory argues that there are victims who actually initiated the confrontation that led to their injuries and deaths. Although this was the result of the study of only one type of crime, the idea was first raised that victims also might play a role in the criminal activity. Subsequently, victimization.

some

general

facts

have

been

gathered

about

• Victimization is more likely at night (6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.). Personal larceny is more common during the day, with more serious crime occurring at night. • Crime occurs more in open public areas, although rapes and simple assaults tend to occur in homes.

•

Crime is most frequent in central city areas.

• Western urban areas have the highest crime rates, while the Northeast rural areas have the lowest. • The National Crime Survey indicates that 25% of U.S. households have at least one individual who was victimized in some way during the past year. • Personal theft is very common. About 99% of Americans will be the victim of personal theft at some time in their lives, and 87% will be a theft victim three or more times. • Men are twice as likely as women to be victims of robbery and assault. The violent victimization rate for females has been fairly stable, but there has been a 20% increase for males in the last 15 years. • Victim risk diminishes rapidly after age 25. Contrary to popular belief, grandparents are safer than their grandchildren. • Unmarried/never married people are more likely to be victims than the married or widowed. • The poor are more likely to be victims of crime. They are far more likely to be victims of violent crime, while the middle class are more likely to be victims of property crime. • African Americans are victimized at the highest rates. Crime tends to be intra-racial (criminals and victims of the same race) rather than interracial (criminal and victim of different races). About 75% of crime is intra-racial. • Strangers commit about 60% of violent crimes. However, females are more likely to know their assailants. • In some studies, over half of offenders report being under the influence of alcohol and/or other drugs when they committed the offense resulting in incarceration. • The characteristics of those most likely to be victimized might be summarized as: young, black, urban, poor and male.

Theories of Victimization A number of theories have been advanced to explain some of the findings indicated above. Life-style theory, for example, argues that certain lifestyles increases one's exposure to criminal offenses and increases risk of victimization, while other life-styles might reduce risk. For example, increased risk would be likely if a person is single, associating with other young men (who are at greater risk for criminal activity), living in urban areas, and going to public places late at night. Reduced risk would be associated with staying home at night, living in a rural area, being married and staying at home, and earning more money. According to this explanation, the probability of crime depends partially on the activities of the victim. Crime is more likely when victims place themselves in jeopardy. This explanation would account for some of the findings with respect to victimization. For example, although the elderly are more fearful of crime (perhaps because they are more vulnerable), they go out less and take more precautions when they do. Women also tend to take more precautions, and are more likely to be accompanied be accompanied by a male or a group, rather than alone. Living in an urban area should increase risk, because crime is more common in urban areas and the likelihood of detection is lower. The Proximity hypothesis suggests that crime is less a function of life-style, but rather is based on close proximity. Victims and criminals live in the same high crime areas, characterized by poor, densely populated, highly transient neighborhoods. The probability of being victimized is more a function of where one lives than one's lifestyle. Proponents of this argument point out that typically criminals do not go far from home to commit their crimes, and thus other people in their own neighborhoods will be more at risk. A related concept is the equivalent group hypothesis, which points out that criminals and victims overall share similar characteristics because they are not entirely separate groups. People who commit crimes are probably at higher risk for victimization, both because of proximity to other criminals and because of their own lifestyles, which involve going out at night and associating with other young males who are involved in crime. In such associations, they place themselves at risk for becoming the victim of crimes themselves. Some support for this concept comes from research that indicates that crime victims as a group self-report a high amount of criminal

activity. This hypothesis does not indicate that all victims are criminals, but that criminals as a group are at higher risk for becoming victims at some point because of the high-risk nature of their activities and associations. Routine activities theory argues that victimization is dependent on the routine activities of people's daily lives. The volume and distribution of predatory crimes depends on (1) the availability of suitable targets; (2) the absence of capable guardians; and (3) the presence of motivated offenders. In other words, as people move about, there must be opportunities (suitable targets), and it must appear that no one will be present, or that no one will intervene if they do observe the crime. "Capable guardians" refers to citizens who are watchful and who would take effective action if the saw criminal activity. Of course, even if there were opportunities and no one to observe activity, crime would not occur if they were not motivated to commit a crime. Routine activities theory accounts for the increase in crime since the 1960s as a function of changes in activities. For example, the traditional neighborhood in the city has declined as many people have left for the suburbs, leaving fewer capable guardians. There are less people at home. Partly this is because more women have entered the workforce rather than staying home, but perhaps more importantly more people have automobiles and more places available for them to go, and simply stay home less. The volume of wealth that can be easily transported has increased. Such changes have meant that there are more opportunities for crime as a function of people's daily routines. Most of Western Europe, Australia, Canada, and the United States have all experienced increases in crime in the latter part of the 20th century, and many of these changes have occurred in these countries. Victim Services The development of new programs and legislation has resulted from the study of victims. Such programs have included: • Victim compensation programs, in which the state pays some of the financial costs of the victim, particularly with respect to violent crime •

Court services, which provide information and assistance to victims

• Crisis intervention and counseling programs for victims, particularly in the case of rape • Self-protection programs that teach people how to avoid victimization (target hardening) and how to mobilize as a community to prevent victimization (such as neighborhood watch) There has also been an ongoing debate about victim's rights, and what those rights ought to be. Should relatives of victims be allowed to speak and discuss the impact of the crime at parole hearings or at death penalty hearings? (many states now provide for this measure). Should citizens be warned when an ex-felon moves into their neighborhood? Some people believe that they should have the right to know and protect themselves. Others believe that the felon has completed his punishment and should be allowed the opportunity to rehabilitate himself without potential harassment from others. This issue has been particularly debated with respect to "Meghan's Law," a law proposed by the parents of a child murdered by a child molester. The perpetrator had a prior history of molestation, and lived in Meghan's neighborhood. The parents maintained that had they known of his past, they would have taken more precautions. The proposed law, which has been passed in some states, allows neighborhood residents to be informed when a sex offender moves into their neighborhood. There has been controversy because some former offenders have been driven from neighborhoods, and have difficulty finding a place to live--and who have served their sentences. These issues are far from resolution.

CONCEPT OF VICTIMOLOGY Victimology is the scientific study of victims of crime, a sub discipline of criminology. It seeks to study the relationship between victim and offenders, the persons especially vulnerable to crimes and the victims. Placement in the criminal justice system. (CJS). Benjamin Mendelsohn has done pioneering work in this field. B. Mendelsohn is credited with being the first study to the relationship between victim and doer (offender) and taken together, he termed to else PENAL COUPLE.

Mendelsohn studied victims on the basis of their contributions to crimes and classified them into the following categories. Completely innocent victims, e.g. Child, Persons in sleep 1. Victims with minor guilt and victims of ignorance such as pregnant women who go to quacks for procuring abortions 2. Voluntary victims, such as the ones who commit suicide or are killed by euthanasia. 3. victims who are more guilty then offenders such as persons who provoke others to commit crimes. the criminal type of victims who commits offences against others and get killed or hurt by others in self-defense. DEFINITION OF VICTIMOLOGY The word “VICTIMOLOGY” was coined in 1947 by a French lawyer, Benjamin Mendelsohn 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 action of another person or a group of persons.

Schultz (1970) says“Victimology is the study of the degree of and type of participation of the victim in the gensis or development of the offences and an evaluation of what is just and proper for the victim’s welfare”. Drapkin and Viano (1974)“Victimology is the branch of criminology which primarily studies the victims of crime and everything that is connected with such are victim”. (as quoted by Krishna and Singh, 1982). In a broder prespective Antilla (1975)-

“Victimology studies by logical, Sociological, Psychological and criminological aspects about the victims and brings into focus the victim-offender relationship and the role played by the victim in occurence of the offence”. In extended sense Separovic(1975)“Victimology is the entire body of knowledge regarding victims, victimization and to preserver the rights of victim; thus it is composed of knowledge drawn from such fields Asiminology, Safety, Law, Medicine, Psychology, Social Work, Education and Public Administration.7 According to Parsonage (1979)“Victimology concern the interaction in which both the criminal and the victim have functional role and responsibilities. Shinder (1982)“----------- it investigates the relationship between offender and victim in crime causation. It deals with the process of victimization, of becoming a victim, and in this context directs much of its attention to the problem victim-offender, sequence, i.e. the question of whether or not victimization can have crimogenic effects or can encourage crime.. CONCEPT OF VICTIM The role, importance and visibility of the victim have varied greatly in human societies. These variations reflect the historical evaluation of legal concepts, as well as diverse approached to the interpretation of such notions as that of individual responsibility. The concept of the victim is an ancient one that is found in many cultures and that is inextricably intertwined with religious sacrifice. Early religious rituals from all parts of the world embody the idea-and often the practice-of divine, human or animal sacrifice. Epics and mythology offer numerous examples of symbolic sacrifices of victims. Before societies created law or rules, law and order originated in the individual. The victimized person himself chooses the offender’s punishment and, if possible, inflicted it. Revenge was the driving force of such individualist justice, and deterrence was its chief aim. The need for security as well as the desire to prevent future attacks often meant that pre-emptive raids were conducted. Thus, in

early societies the relationship of criminal and victim basically reflected a raw struggle for power and survival, and the right of the individual victim to take vengeance was of paramount importance.

DEFINITION OF VICTIM The connotations of term ‘victim’ vary in different legal, social, psychological or criminological contexts. The penal codes of the erstwhile USSR describe the victim as follows. Those who have as a direct result of a crime suffered moral physical or material damage; 1. Those who have suffered physical, moral, or material damage throw and attempted offence; 2. Those whose material damage caused by the crime was made good after the crime, either by the criminal himself or with the help of Militia or of an individual action; 3. Close relation of person who died as a result of a crime. From the legal stand point, Fattah (1966) observedThe Victim may be specific such as physical or moral person (Corporation, State, and Association) or non specific-and an abstraction. Quinney (1972)“The victim is a conception of reality as well as an object of events. All parties involved in sequence of actions construct the reality of the situation. And in the larger social contacts, we all engage in common sense construction of the crime, the criminal, and the victims” Separovic (1975) stated“We consider a victim as anything, physical or moral person who suffers either as a result of ruthless design or accidentally. Accordingly we have victim of crime or offence and victims of accidents.” Castro(1979)-

“A Victim is a variable of crime or is an accident producing factor for others and for him.” In wider perspective defined by Roy Lambron (1983-84)“___________ a person who has suffered physical or mental injury or harm, mental loss or damage or other social disadvantage as result of conduct. In violation of national penal laws, or 1. deemed a crime under international laws; or 2. constructing a violation of internationally recognized human rights, norms, protecting life, liberty and personal security; or which otherwise amounts to “an abuse of power” by persons, who, by reason of their position of power by authority derived from political, economic or social power, whether they are public officials, agents or employees of the state or corporate entities, are beyond the reach of the loss which; 3. although not proscribed by national or international law, causes physical, psychological or economic harm as severe as that caused by abuses of power constituting a violation of internationally recognized human rights norms and creates needs in victims as serious as those caused by violations of such norms” CHARACTERSTICS OF VICTIMS Von Henting made the first ever study of the role of victim in crime and found some general characteristics among them which may be summarized as follows; The poor and ignorant immigrants and those who are requisitive or greedy are the victims of offences involving frauds. 1. Quite often the victims of larcency (theft) are intoxicated or sleeping persons. The depressed or apathetic person is a victim because he is “deprived of warning posts” and is indifferent harm or injury “in prospect”.

3. Wanton or Sensual persons may become victims due to situations precipitated by themselves. 4. A lonesome and heartbroken person may become especially vulnerable because of the loss of critical faculties in him. Among “general classes of victims”, Von Hentig includes the young, females, the old, the mentally defective and deranged, the intoxicated immigrants, members of minority groups and the “dull normal”. VICTIM AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM One important and basic factor in the administration of criminal justice is the victim’s decision as to whether he should invoke the judicial process. There are a number of motives and factors responsible for the wide gap between the actual volume of the crime and the reports made to the police about it. Only in the 1940’s did scholarly interest in the criminal-victim relationship develop, although the founders of criminology had been aware of how crucial it was. Hans Von Hentig, Benjamin Mendelsohn, and Henry Ellenberger, the last in his study of the psychological relationship between the criminal and his victims. It is a parody on the vagaries of the criminal justice systems of the Developing World that inspite of Thirty years of Independence there has been no conceptual study or empirical research regarding the victims of criminal offences. A movement for the recognition of the modern victim of crime as deserving more effective remedy than the traditional practice of bringing civil suits was begun by the English penal reformer Margery Fry in 1955. Her call for reform was heeded in New Zealand in 1963, when that country’s parliament established the first crime compensation tribunal. This board has discretionary power to award public compensation to the victim or his dependants in the case of certain specified offences. The next year, Great Britain’s Tory government announced a similar but non statuary program. In the United States the first jurisdiction to adopt the compensation principle was California; which enacted its programs in 1965 and put it into operation two years later. Since that time, similar or related programs have been established in some thirty states in the United States and in all the Canadian, provinces. Financial restitution by the offender to the victim represents

another development in the legal handling of the victim, in the United States, at least forty normal restitution programs are in operation. THE VICTIM AS VICTIM OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM Students and professionals in the criminal justice system have become increasingly aware that the victim of a criminal often becomes the victim of criminal justice system as well as once the victim reports his victimization to the police-the gateway to the criminal justice system-he routinely faces postponements, delays, rescheduling, and other frustrations. All their means loss of earnings, waste of time, payment of transportation and other expenses, discouragement, and the painful realization that the system does not live up to its ideals and does not serve its constituency, but instead serves only itself. Many believe that the victim is the most disregarded participant in criminal justice proceedings. In practice, after the victim has reported his victimization and provided information to the police, he may not hear from the police or the prosecutor for a long time, if ever, cases are disposed of without any consultation with the victim if and when the victim is called for the trial, he is treated simply as the witness for the state and is subject to long delays, postponements, and other frustrating experiences. Newly focused attention has brought professional recognition to the victim’s plight at the hands of the criminal justice system: As a result, innovative proposals have been implemented to create victim assistance programmes, to provide the victim with legal and social referral services, to honor his right to be consulted and to offer his opinions when the prosecutor plea bargains with the accused, and to totally revamp the compensation-restitution idea. Some police departments report to victims the progress being made in investigating and solving their cases, and communities may provide such services as rape crisis centers and spouse abuse shelters to assist crime victims by intervening in the crisis and referring the victims to community and others resources in the case of rape, the women’s movement has spurred victimologists-mostly males-to give more equitable and balanced attention to the issues surrounding what some have called “the most despicable but least punished crime.” Attention to the victim calls for an examination of the appropriate remedies for victimization. Too often the remedies offered to poor victims reflect middle-class values. The victim’s point of view should be sought when systems are developed for compensating crime victims, and the concept of

relative loss should compensation.

be

introduced

in

debate

and

deliberations

for

GRIEVANCES AND PROBLEMS OF VICTIMS The grievances of the victims can be summarized as follows1. Inadequacy of the law in allowing the victim to participate in the prosecution in a criminal case instituted on a police report 2. Failure on the part of the police and prosecution to keep the victims informed about progress of the case 3. Inconvenience during interrogation by the police and lengthy court proceeding. 4. Lack of prompt medical assistance to the victims of body offences and victims of accident. 5. Lack of legal assistance to the victim. 6. Lack of protection when the victims are threatened by the offender. 7. Failure in restitution of victim. Along with these multifarious problems:

grievances,

the

victims

of

crimes

faced

I Economic strain of the family II Change in Social role of dependents. III Frustration and helplessness leading to suicide. IV Social stigma. V Emergence of criminal behavior. An important aspect of investigating a violent crime is an understanding of the victim and the relation that their lifestyle or personality characteristics may have contributed to the offender choosing them as a victim. Please do not misunderstand the previous statement. In no way are victims being

blamed for becoming a victim of a violent crime. Even high risk victims (to be described shortly) have the right to live how they wish without becoming a victim of the type of offenses described on this site. Yet the fact remains, that to understand the offender, one must first understand the victim.

Victims are classified during an investigation in three general categories that describe the level of risk their lifestyle represents in relation to the violent crime that has been committed. The importance of understanding this in an investigation is directly related back to the level of risk to the offender during the commission of the crime. This information is important to the investigation to better understand the sophistication or possible pathology of the offender.

High Risk Victims - Victims in this group have a lifestyle that makes them a higher risk for being a victim of a violent crime. The most obvious high risk victim is the prostitute. Prostitutes place themselves at risk every single time they go to work. Prostitutes are high risk because they will get into a stranger's car, go to secluded areas with strangers, and for the most part attempt to conceal their actions for legal reasons. Offenders often rely on all these factors and specifically target prostitutes because it lowers their chances of becoming a suspect in the crime. Therefore, in this example, the prostitute is a high risk victim creating a lower risk to the offender.

Moderate Risk Victims - Victims that fall into this category are lower risk victims, but for some reason were in a situation that placed them in a greater level of risk. A person that is stranded on a dark, secluded highway due to a flat tire that accepts a ride from a stranger and is then victimized would be a good example of this type of victim level risk.

Low Risk Victims - The lifestyle of these individuals would normally not place them in any degree of risk for becoming a victim of a violent crime. These individuals stay out of trouble, do not have peers that are criminal, are aware of their surroundings and attempt to take precautions to not become a

victim. They lock the doors, do not use drugs, and do not go into areas that are dark and secluded.

CONCLUDING REMARKS The victim is essentially an inseparable part of crime. Therefore the phenomenon of crime cannot be comprehensively explained without incorporating the victim of a crime. Crime victim, despite being an integral part of crime and a key factor in criminal justice system, remained a forgotten entity as his status got reduced only to report crime and appear in the court as witness and he routinely faces postponements, delays, rescheduling, and other frustrations. All their means loss of earnings, waste of time, payment of transportation and other expenses, discouragement, and the painful realization that the system does not live up to its ideals and does not serve its constituency, but instead serves only itself. Many believe that the victim is the most disregarded participant in criminal justice proceedings. It is, therefore, the Indian Higher Courts have started to award the compensation through their writ jurisdiction in appropriate cases. Advocate Deepak bade B.A. LLB. LL.M.