Victim: The Conundrum Over Definition

Who is a Victim.

Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, as recognised in the 96th plenary meeting of UN general assembly, 1985, also known as the Magna Carta of Victims' Rights recognises a victim regardless of whether the perpetrator is identified, apprehended, prosecuted or convicted.

The newly enacted Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (hereinafter BNSS) recognises the "Victim" under S. 2(1)(y) as - any person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by the reason of an act or omission of the accused person and includes the guardian or legal hier of such victim in contrast with the previous Criminal Procedure Code 1973 under section 2 (wa) wherein Victim meant a - person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by the reasons of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged.

Though the change in definition of Victim eliminates the need for the accused being formally "charged" in order for the victim to receive the compensation and other benefits due under the code. Being charged under the soon-to-be repealed CrPC 1973 followed several procedural formalities, consuming time and rendering witnesses helpless for an uncertain amount of time. The present definition attempts to redress the issue.

There is, however, another problem with the definition of Victim under BNSS, 2023 that the definition of accused which is of paramount importance for ascertaining the victim is provided nowhere in the code. Definition of the word "accused" under provisions/ explanations of different sections of CrPC (see for example section 273) is at most an inclusive definition and not an exhaustive one which opens the room for interpretation and widening of the term "accused". The word "accused" has not been used in all parts of the code in the same sense. This compels us to construe that the word is to be interpreted in different parts of the statue in different contexts so that the intent of the legislature be served the best.

In order to understand the interpretations of different high courts let us visit a few judicial precedents.

Cuming J.in Narendra Chandra Rudra Pal V. Sabarali Bhuiya (1925) speaking for the Calcutta High Court defines "accused" as "a person charged with an infringement of the law for which he is liable, if found guilty, to be punished". If we import this definition into section 2(1)y of BNSS, it gives preposterous results for the reason that the section does not necessitate framing of charges.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sohan Lal and Others V. State of Rajasthan (1990) held that the "persons against whom the cognizance was taken and process issued in a police case come under the definition of the accused". The High Court of Allahabad in Ramua Alias Ram Lal V. State Of U.P (1992)held that a person who is not named in the FIR may also be an accused referring to the case of Amin V. State of U.P. (1958) wherein the same Court had held that the moment suspicion is attached to a person and he is taken into custody for interrogation is an accused on that basis.

Likewise in catena of decisions varying interpretations having given to the term accused.

Relevance of victims in the criminal justice system and Their Identification

Identification of victims is pivotal to the criminal justice system. Co-operation on the part of citizens of a nation is sine qua non for proper administration of the criminal justice system. Several crimes go unreported if citizens are not provided with adequate and timely compensation. Satisfied victims would lead to happy citizenry and consequently a co-operative and responsible component of the society that is law-abiding. The more satisfaction a victim derives the healthier is the relationship between citizens and authority which ultimately goes a long way in lowering down criminal activities.

As a beacon, The Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power recognises Compensation, Assistance, Restitution and Access to justice & fair treatment as primary needs of the victims of crimes. The BNSS provides for several kinds of rights to the victims viz. participatory rights and right to information inter alia. However, the elephant in the room remains as to who would be the victim if no accused could be identified in the first place for code needs and accused to proceed against. Would the person not remain a victim and thereby not entitled to any of the benefits meant for rehabilitation or restitution of a victim in case nobody is made an accused say a blind woman being thrown acid upon, who couldn't identify the perpetrator so as to pinpoint at a particular person thereby accusing him or her?

The present change in definition of Victim might help but the need for identification of an "accused" to be considered a Victim is still restrictive for many times the perpetrator can't be determined which might lead to startling consequences rendering those affected by the crime devoid of any remedy in certain situations.

Way forward

Time and again Supreme Court has pointed out that their remains inconsistency in the award of compensation to the victims. In the case of Mallikarjun Kodagali V. State of Karnataka (2019) the Hon'ble Court has emphasized on the need of a psychosocial unit for rehabilitation of the victims of crime. These kinds of suggestions do not present themselves in the CrPC or BNSS. There needs to be an institution comprising experts in the field of law, psychology, investigation and medicine so as to be able to identify on the basis of a primary facie scrutiny whether or not the alleged crime has been committed and provide adequate support, rehabilitation and restitution to the victim irrespective of the process of trial or investigation. The institution may also be funded by penalties imposed on the convicts. Additionally, since the definition of the word accused is open ended, in light of the judicial precedents discussed above, we must interpret it in light of the Golden Rule of interpretation which states that such interpretation be supplied that serves the intent of legislature so that absurdities are avoided. It is important that we deem the victims of crimes as more than a "Prosecution Witness" for this will go a long way towards achieving a robust criminal justice system which is set into motion for the purpose of restoration of order in the society, inter alia, be there a breach.

Author is an Advocate at Jharkhand High Court

Views Are Personal