The principle established in the celebrated English case of R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy – “Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done” is the cornerstone on which any justice system stands. Extending that principle to victims- it can be painfully said “Justice may be done for the accused in terms of a fair and transparent trial, but not for the victims as for them it is neither seen to be done nor in essence being done. They are literally alone in their fight for justice”.

The Indian Criminal Justice system “CJS” comprises of the police, prosecution / defence lawyers, Judiciary and the penal system (the correctional system in better parlance). The CJS alone is responsible from the time a crime is reported to the police, to the prosecution of the accused subsequent trial of the offense, culmination of verdict by the judiciary and finally if the accused is convicted the incarceration of the accused in a penal facility. The main laws governing the CJS, apart The Constitution of India, 1950 ‘suprema Lex’ are:

• The India Penal Code, 1860,
• The Code of Criminal procedure, 1973,
• The India Evidence Act, 1872; along with
• Special laws for dealing with specific offenses for certain categories of people like children, women, etc are: Protection of Children from sexual offenses act, 2012 “POCSO” Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 The Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

The Indian Penal Code is a comprehensive legislation enacted in 1860 containing 511 sections spread over 23 chapters defining various offenses along with their penalties. The object is to define offenses which will be termed as a criminal offense requiring criminal prosecution. The procedure followed by prosecuting the offenders is as per the code of criminal procedure with evidentiary rules as per Indian Evidence Act.

The “victim” as defined under The Code of Criminal procedure, means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression “victim” includes his or her guardian or legal heir. For the purpose of this article, we are restricting the term victims to only victims of heinous crimes, with focus on crimes against women and children.

The State assumes responsibility for bringing the case against the offenders in the Court through the State prosecutor with investigation being done by the Police. The accused is required to be given a fair trial and his rights are protected in line with Article 21, 22, 23 of the Constitution of India and also an established process as per the code of criminal procedure. The convicted are also given relief and exemption under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, Section 360 of Cr. PC and under parole rules, made under the Prison Act, 1894 and Prisoner Act, 1900, which each state formulates.

On the inverse, the victims have no effective or real rights and are at the complete mercy of state. In fact, there is complete apathy towards the victims from the time they report to the police for reporting a punishable offense or file a private complaint before the Magistrate, till the time justice is given or finally denied during the entire ordeal of prosecution of the accused. There have been attempts by the State to address the grievances of the victims including restitution through grant of compensation by amending the Code of Criminal procedure by inserting Section 357A of the code and also through the Victim Compensation Scheme rolled out by various states, however, the situation of the ground is pitiful due to nonexercise of power by the courts to grant compensation, inordinate delay in grant of compensation when granted, bureaucracy, inadequate compensation and overall apathy of the system and processes.

Take the case of Unnao case rape victim, her father, relatives- who were repeatedly subjected to intimidation, threat, assault, other grievous harm from the time the offense was reported to the Police till the time the accused (a powerful person) was convicted to life imprisonment by the Trial Court.

In the case of Nirbhaya’s case the mother broke down outside the Patiala House court after the court adjourned for January 7, 2020 the hearing on the issuance of death warrants against the four convicts in the Delhi gangrape-andmurder case. She said she was “upset” at the court’s decision. “The convicts have been given one more chance. Why are their rights being considered? What about our rights?” she asked.1 That is the moot question- where are the rights of the victim in such heinous offenses. The victims especially who are from the impoverished section of the society face, inter-alia, the following main challenges: The police apathy, at the time of first interaction with the CJS, when filing a complaint for an alleged offense, no rights to represent himself/ herself during the prosecution of the accused at the trial with apathy from the prosecution as well as scant regard to the interest of the victim. no right to be heard and give their side of the story, no right to be informed of the progress of the prosecution and being included and informed at critical stages of the trial, no immediate restitution or reparation or even compensation for the pain and suffering endured, Inordinate delay in compensation under section 357A of the code of criminal procedure, POCSO Act and other acts and if granted- the compensation is also not adequate to give some form of restitution.

There is in fact no specially dedicated administrative agency to handle victim rights and assuage their grief, which makes their condition in our system even more lamentable. The above also demonstrates that the victim becomes a shadow in the trial of the accused, which is a travesty as the victim is the real sufferer.

It could also be said the CJS works in favour of the rich and mighty which in recent times clearly demonstrates. This aggravates the needs for reform in the CJS which can be beneficial for restoring the integrity, credibility and of purpose the CJS. From the perspective of victims, reforms in the CJS are needed on the following fronts:

• Substantial improvement in the initial police response for the victims by showing empathy and following due process of law without any prejudice or biasness.
• Speeding up trials especially cases under POCSO and crimes against women as long delays in conclusion of trails only adds to the misery of the victims. They need closure to end their ordeal and get justice.
• Establishment of rehabilitation centre where victims can seek support post crime for aid, shelter, psychological counselling, etc.
• Revamp of compensation under the act by expediting compensation under Section 357A, POCSO and under the victim compensation scheme which looks good on paper but lacks teeth and momentum.
• Obligating the trial courts to mandatorily grant compensation at the inception of trail to the victim in form of interim compensation but also at the conclusion (irrespective whether the accused is convicted or acquitted) as the State has responsibility towards the victims.
• Sensitization and training of all personnel involved in the CJS on how to handle and empathize with victims who are in a state of pain and grief and need understanding and support of the State machinery.

The substratum of the CJS is to deliver real, timely and effective justice to the victims. While the victims may get justice after the accused is convicted, after a long and arduous process under the CJS. However, is it real justice? This ethos is echoed rightly by Justice Albie Sachs, a member of the Supreme Court of South Africa when he said: “Justice is not only in the end result; it is also in the process”.