Anda di halaman 1dari 17







MR. P.K Gautam Tanaya Bajpai

Faculty of Law SEM: V


1. Introduction
2. Meaning of Victim of Crime and Compensation to Victim of Crime
3. Evolution of Concept of Compensation to Victim of Crime
4. Indian Legal Frame Work:
(a) Legislative Frame Work
(b) Judicial response
5. Assessment of the Role of Legislative Frame work and Indian Courts
6. Conclusion and suggestion
7. Bibliography
Aim of the project: To study the various methods and steps taken to mitigate the sufferings
of victims by way legal framework.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: The research methodology used for making this

project is basically non-empirical one which involves the study of various books, articles and
commentaries related to victim compensation.


INTRODUCTION: Criminal law has always discouraged the acts and omissions which in
general can effect right in rem and violators have been punished with strict sanctions but the
crime rate is not falling and the State is in regular quest to preserve social solidarity and peace in
society. The initial focus of the criminologists was only the aspect of punishment but the focus
started shifting when they encountered the fact that the person who is the victim of the crime is
getting nothing out of the whole process of criminal justice system or is getting a so called
satisfaction by seeing the offender punished. Therefore, jurists, penologists started giving their
full attention to the cause of the victim in the form of compensation and hence the whole debate
started about ways and means of compensation.

Victims of any crime and of human rights violations (regardless of their legal status) have a right
to be compensated for the losses sustained due to the crime committed on her/him.
Compensation can be sought through criminal, civil or administrative procedures, and can be
awarded for material (including unpaid wages and medical expenses) and non-material (such as
for pain, suffering and trauma) damages). The victim of a criminal act can claim for
compensation from the offender as part of a criminal case. Compensation has to be ordered by
the court and is part of a guilty verdict. In criminal cases victims can directly apply for
compensation and thus, it is important that prosecutors are aware of the existence of this right to
request the judge to make such order. Trafficked persons, as with all victims of human rights
violations have a right to a remedy. This means they have a right to access criminal, civil and/or
administrative procedures for seeking financial redress – compensation for material and non-
material damages resulting from the crime committed to them, unpaid wages, restitution from the
offender and other forms.
Meaning of Victim of Crime and Compensation to Victim of Crime:
Indian legislature has not bothered to define "Victim of Crime" under any law and probably the
Indian Judiciary is also on the same footing. The etymological meaning of phrase suggests that it
would mean or will encompass:
i. Anyone suffering physical, emotional or financial harm as a direct result of a Crime.
ii. Spouses and children of the person who has suffered.
iii. Parents, foster parents, siblings, guardians or other custodians of minor victims, mentally or
physically incapacitated victims, or victims of homicide.

In this regard reliance can be placed upon United Nations General Assembly Declaration of
Basic Principles of Justice for Victim and Abuse of Power adopted in November 1985, which
through Article 1&2 gives exhaustive definition of the phrase:

Article 1. "Victims" means persons who, individually or collectively, have suffered harm,
including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial
impairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omissions that are in violation of
criminal laws operative within Member States, including those laws proscribing criminal abuse
of power.

Article 2. A person may be considered a victim, under this Declaration, regardless of whether
the perpetrator is identified, apprehended, prosecuted or convicted and regardless of the familial
relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. The term "victim" also includes, where
appropriate, the immediate family or dependants of the direct victim and persons who have
suffered harm in intervening to assist victims in distress or to prevent victimization.

Therefore the combine effect of these Articles probably encompasses everything under the sun
that ought to have been the part of definition of the phrase.

The word compensation in literal sense men's a thing that compensates or is given to compensate
for; a counterbalancing feature or factor; amends, recompense; spec. money given to compensate
loss or injury, or for requisitioned property. When we talk about Compensation to the victims it
means something given in recompense i.e. equivalent rendered . It is to be noted that the whole
purpose of compensation is to make good the loss sustain by the victim or legal representative of
the deceased. Generally when we talk about compensation in the present context it only limits
itself to monetary compensation which is calculated on the basis of two head i.e. pecuniary loss
and non-pecuniary loss.

Evolution of Concept of Compensation to Victim of Crime:

The evolution of the concept can be traced both historically and theoretically. Historically the
concept of victimology in crude sense was not only part of Hammurabi's code but also existed
in developed sense in ancient Greek city-states. The concept of compensation was also not new
to India and existed in more developed sense then the present. Manu in Chapter VIII, verse 287
clearly says that:
“If limb is injured, a wound is caused or blood flows, the assailant shall be made to pay the
expense of the cure or the whole.”
He further in verse 288 says that: “He who damages the goods of another, be it intentionally or
unintentionally, shall give to the owner a kind of fine equal to damage.”

This is in brief the law relating to compensation to the victim of crime that even existed
in ancient civilization of east as well as west. As far as tracing of gradual evolution of the
concept is concern the whole era till mid of 1900 can be generally divided in to three parts. In
initial year of human civilization when the human started living together especially after stone
Age, because of absence of rule of law and authoritative political institution, right to punish or
rather might to punish (in from of eye for eye or money) was with the individual and hence in
crude sense the concept of compensation existed at that time even but line of caution that need to
be bear in mind is the fact that in primitive society criminal victim relationship was based on
brutal mentality of attack being the best defense. Then came the era in which the social control in
terms of mechanical solidarity creped in the society and the offence against an individual lost its
individualistic character and now the offence was considered to be against the tribe or clan to
which individual belongs and from this era, due to advent of concept of collective responsibility
clan or tribe started replacing the victim's right. The third stage started with the advent of strong
monarch after medieval period. In this stage on one hand criminal law saw far reaching change
in all its discipline but on other the hand position of victim right to compensation remained
unheard due to advent of more strong institution named state and crystallization of a notion that
King/ State is parent of his subjects and Crime is breach of peace of King or State. So it was
King/State who had the right to punish and get monetary compensation. This position remained
as it is even with advent of democracy and the cause of victim remained unnoticed until 1950
and after that a movement stared in U.S. and European countries and the concept again got
prominence. Theoretically radical criminologist championed the idea of cause of victim, which
was result of reaction against the then criminological thinking that was only concern with
criminals and not the victims.

Indian Legal Frame Work:

The Indian position regarding compensation to victim of crime can be studied under two heads
or rather must be studied under two head in order to get complete picture.

1. Legislative Frame Work: The legislative framework in Indian regarding

compensation to victim of crime can be trace through two major legislations i.e. Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Probations of Offenders Act and Constitution of India.
Under the provisions of code of criminal Procedure the power to award compensation is
vested under section 357.

Section 357, Code of Criminal Procedure: Order to pay compensation-

(1) When a court imposes a sentence of fine or a sentence (including a sentence of death) of
which fine forms a part, the court may, when passing judgment order the whole or any part of the
fine recovered to be applied-

(a) In defraying the expenses properly incurred in the prosecution,

(b) In the payment to any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused by the offence,
when compensation is, in the opinion, of the court, recoverable by such person in a Civil Court;

(c) When, any person is convicted of any offence for having caused the death of another person
or of having abetted the commission of shelf all offence, in paying in, compensation to the
persons who are, under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (13 of 1855) entitled to recover damages
from the person sentenced for the loss resulting to them from such death;
(d) When any person is convicted of any offence which includes theft, criminal,
misappropriation, criminal breach of trust or cheating, or of having dishonestly received or
retained, or of having voluntarily assisted in disposing of stolen property knowing or having
reason to believe the same to be stolen in compensating any bona fide purchaser of such property
for the loss of the same if such property is restored to the possession of the person entitled
(2) If the fine is imposed in a case, which is subject to appeal, no such payment shall be made
before the period allowed for presenting the appeal his elapsed, or if an, appeal be presented,
before the decision of the appeal.
(3) When a court imposes a sentence, of which fine does not form a part, the court may, when
passing judgment order the accused person to pay, by way of compensation such amount as may
be specified in the order to the person who has suffered any loss or injury reason of the act for
which the accused person his been so sentenced.
(4) An order under this section may also be made by all Appellate Court or by the High Court or
Court of Session when exercising its powers of revision.
(5) At the time of awarding compensation in any subsequent civil suit relating to the same
matter, the court shall take into account any sum paid or recovered as compensation under this
The plain reading of the section shows that sub-section (1) and (3) vests power on the trail court
to award compensation and sub-section (4) gives power even to appellant or revision court to
order for compensation. Sub section (1) empowers the courts to appropriate the whole or any
portion of fine recovered for the purpose mentioned in the clauses to the sub section, under
which Clause (b) is most important and of our use . It demands that claim of compensation must
be accompanied by following conditions:

1. Loss or injury suffered

2. Loss or injury must be caused by the offence
3. Such person can recover the compensation in a civil court

Sub section (3) empowers the court, in its discretion, to order the accuse to pay compensation
even though fine does not form part of compensation and hence although inserted in 1973 added
new positive dimension to Indian philosophy of compensation.
Probation of Offenders Act vide its section 5 empowers the trail court to order for compensation.

Section 5: Power of court to require released offenders to pay compensation and costs:

(1) The Court directing the release of an offender under section 3 or section 4, may, if it thinks
fit, make at the same time a further order directing him to pay-
(a) such compensation as the court thinks reasonable for loss or injury caused to any person by
the commission of the offence; and
(b) such costs of the proceedings as the court thinks reasonable.
(2) The amount ordered to be paid under sub- section (1) may be recovered as a fine in
accordance with the provisions of sections 386 and 387 of the Code.
(3) A civil court trying any suit, arising out of the same matter for which the offender is
prosecuted, shall take into account any amount paid or recovered as compensation under sub-
section (1) in awarding damages.
The plain reading of this section clearly shows that the power in case of this Act vests only with
the trail court and non-else. The whole discussion about legislative framework is incomplete
until Section 431 and 421 of Cr.P.C. is read with above two substantive sections. Section 421
provides for means to recover the fine by attachment and sale of movable property of the
offender and also from both movable and immovable as arrears of land revenue. Section 431
empowers the courts to recover any money (other than fine) payable by virtue of any order made
under as if it were fine if method for its recovery is not expressly provided. As far as the
Constitutional scheme is concern it is to be noted that it is outcome of various decision of
Supreme Court of India either by reading Part third rights (in some cases part four as well) with
Art. 32, 136 and 142 of Constitution of India, which is to be given either by the state or accuse.

Hence the whole gamete of legislative framework about compensation can be summarized in
following way:
(i) Compensation from State, which is outcome of Judicial Imposition or some times, even ex-
gratia under Constitution of India.

(ii) Compensation from an offender which is out come either as a part of fine or allocation of
specific sum to victim either under Cr.P.C. or Constitution of India.
2. JUDICIAL RESPONSE: There exist plethora of cases where the compensation has
been awarded by the Supreme Court to the victims of the crime which not only present
the heart full moments but also exposed the sorry state of affairs that has been prevalent
in the lower courts even some times High Courts.

It is better to examine cases under two heads i.e. (i) under Cr.P.C. and P.O.A. and (ii) under
Indian Constitution in order to appreciate the judicial standpoint on this issue.

(i) Under Cr.P.C. or P.O.A.: The first case in the line, which attracted the mind
of the court came way back in 1952 where the Hon'ble connected general principle of
sentencing i.e. while passing a sentence the court must bear in mind the proposnality
between offence and penalty with granting of compensation and observed that while
imposing the fine court must consider gravity of offence and the pecuniary condition
of the offender. Then came the case of Prabhu Prasad Sah v State of Bihar1 where
the Hon'ble not only uphold the conviction of 15 years old boy (actually at the time of
commission of crime the accuse was of 15 Yrs) but also observed that although
requirements of social justice demands the imposition of heavy fine but taking in to
consideration the condition of the accuse awarded fine of Rs 3000 to be paid by him
to the children of the deceased. In another case of Palaniappa Gounder v Sate of
Tamil Nadu2, Supreme Court following the same view as of earlier not only reduced
the amount of fine imposed by the High Court from Rs 20,000 to Rs 3,000 but also
observed that:

“It appears to us that the High Court first considered what compensation ought to be awarded to
the heirs of the deceased and then imposed by way of fine an amount which was higher than the
compensation because the compensation has to come out of the amount of fine. Apart from the
fact that even the compensation was not fixed on any reliable data, the High Court, with respect,
put the cart before the horse in leaving the propriety of fine to depend upon the amount of
compensation. The first concern of the Court, after recording an order of conviction, ought to be
determining the proper sentence to pass. The sentence must be proportionate to the nature of the

AIR 1977 SC 704
1977 SCR (3) 132
offence and the sentence, including the sentence of fine, must be unduly excessive.”Next in the is
landmark case of Sarwan Sing v State of Punjab3 where supreme court not only retreated its
previous stand point but also laid down, in exhaustive manner, that what all should be taken in to
account while imposing fine or compensation. The Hon'ble Court Observed that:

“The object of the section therefore, is to provide compensation payable to the persons who are
entitled to recover damage from the person sentenced even though fine does not form part of the
sentence. Though Section 545 enabled the court only to pay compensation out of the fine that
would be imposed under the law, by Section 357(3) when a Court imposes a sentence, of which
find does not form a part, the Court may direct the accused to pay compensation. In awarding
compensation it is necessary for the court to decide whether the case is a fit one in which
compensation has to be awarded. If it is found that compensation should be paid, then the
capacity of the accused to pay compensation has to be determined. In directing compensation,
the object is to collect the fine and pay it to the person who has suffered the loss. The purpose
will not be served if the accused is not able to pay the fine or compensation for, imposing a
default sentence for non-payment of fine would not achieve the object. If the accused is in
position to pay the compensation to the injured or his dependents to which they are entitled to,
there could be no reason for the court not directing such compensation. When a person, who
caused injury due to negligence or is made vicariously liable is bound to pay compensation it is
only appropriate to direct payment by the accused who is guilty of causing an injury with the
necessary mens rea to pay compensation for the person who has suffered injury. And also :
It is the duty of the court to take into account the nature of the crime, the injury suffered, the
justness of the claim for compensation, the capacity of the accused to pay and other relevant
circumstances in fixing the amount of fine or compensation. After consideration of all the facts
of the case, we feel that in addition to the sentence of 5 years' rigorous imprisonment, a fine of
Rs. 3500 on each of the accused under Section 304(1), I.P.C. should be imposed.”

The next important case is of Bhuperndar Singh v State of M.P4. which was outcome of quarrel
between college students where the Hon'ble Court although allowed the compounding of offence
but did not forget the cause of victim and granted the compensation of Rs 3000.

AIR 1957 SC 637
AIR 2000 SC 679
The Case of Harikishan & State of Haryana v Sukhbir Singh5 and others is the second most
important case after Sarwan Singh where court repeated its firm understanding once again in
following words :

“The payment by way of compensation must, however, be reasonable. What is reasonable, may
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The quantum of compensation may be
determined by taking into account the nature of crime, the justness of claim by the victim and the
ability of accused to pay. If there are more than one accused they may be asked to pay in equal
terms unless their capacity to pay varies considerably. The payment may also vary depending
upon the acts of each accused. Reasonable period for payment of compensation, if necessary by
instalments, may also be given. The court may enforce the order by imposing sentence in

In the case of Balraj Singh v State of U.P.6 stated the same point as discussed above but in most
appropriate word by saying that the power to a award compensation is not ancillary to the other
sentence but in addition thereto.

(ii) Under Indian Constitution: The principle of payment of compensation to

the victim of crime was evolved by Hon'ble S.C. on the ground that it is duty of the
welfare state to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens not only against the
actions of its agencies but is also responsible for hardships on the victims on the
grounds of humanitarianism and obligation of social welfare, duty to protect it's
subject, equitable Justice etc . It is to be noted that compensation by the State for the
action of it's official was evolved by the Hon'ble Court against the doctrine of English
law: "King can do no Wrong" and clearly stated in the case of Nilabati Behra v State
of Orissa7 that doctrine of sovereign immunity is only applicable in the case of
tortuous act of government servant and not where there is violation of fundamental
rights and hence in a way stated that in criminal matters (of course if there is violation
of fundamental rights) this doctrine is not applicable.

AIR 1988 SC 2127
1994 SCC (4) 29
AIR 1993 SC 1960
Rudal Sah v State of Bihar8 is the most celebrated case where the Hon'ble S.C. directed the state
to pay compensation of Rs 35,000 to Rudal Sah who was kept in jail for 14 years even after his
acquittal on the ground of insanity and held that it is violation of Article 21 done by the State of
Bihar. The case of Bhim Singh v State of J&K9 is another important case where Bhim Singh an
MLA was arrested by the police only to prevent him to attended the Legislative Assembly, the
Hon'ble Court not only entertained the writ petition of his wife but also awarded the
compensation of Rs 50,000 to be paid by the state. The case of Meja Singh v SHO Police Station
Zira10 is another unfortunate case where this time High Court of P&H took the cause of victim
and awarded the compensation of Rs 25,000 for illegal detention of son of the petitioner. This
time it was High Court Bombay, which took the cause of the victim in the case of Ravikant Patil
v DG Police, State of Maharastra11 where the petitioner was taken handcuffed to court in clear
violation of Judgment of Hon'ble S.C., that is law, as decided in the case of Prem Shanker Shukla
v Delhi Administration12.

Custodial Death is another burning issue where the courts have awarded compensation to the
victims of crime and the most important case under this heading is of Mrs. Cardino v Union of
India13 where although the accuse was arrested on the charge of misappropriation of some plastic
ware and hospital; utensils worth Rs1500 but tortured like hard core criminal and hence he
succumbed to the torture. Here when the matter was brought before the Hon'ble High Court of
Bombay which gave the compensation of Rs 2,00,000 to be paid by the state. In the case
of Nilabati Behra v State of Orissa where the son of petitioner was arrested by the police and
next morning his body was found laying down with several injuries on the railway track, the
Hon'ble S.C. awarded the compensation of Rs 1,50,000 that is to be paid by the State.

On the issue of brutal use of force and misuse of authority by the police outside the police
station case of SAHELI v Commissioner of Police14 is land mark where the son of Kamlesh
Kumari died due to ill treatment by a S.I. of Delhi Police, the Hon'ble S.C. directed the Delhi

(1983) 4 SCC 141
1984 Supp (1) SCC 504
1991 ACJ 439
1990 ACJ 1060
1980 SCR (3) 855
2007 CriLJ 1758
AIR 1990 SC 513
Adm. to pay the compensation of Rs 75,000. The next important case is of Gudalure Cherian v
Union of India15 where Hon'ble S.C. following an innovative approach first directed the whole
matter to be investigated by the CBI afresh and completion of investigation directed the Govt. of
U.P. to first suspend the police officials and medical officers who tried to save the accuse but
also directed the state to pay compensation of Rs 2,50,000 to the victim of rape and Rs 1,00,000
to victim of other crime. The next in the line is the case of Bodhi Satta Gautam v Subhra
Chakraborty16 where the Hon'ble S.C. invented the concept of interim compensation and
enforced the part third right against an individual by saying that:

“This decision recognises the right of the victim for compensation by providing that it shall be
awarded by the Court on conviction of the offender subject to the finalisation of Scheme by the
Central Government. If the Court trying an offence of rape has jurisdiction to award the
compensation at the final stage, there is no reason to deny to the Court the right to award interim
compensation, which should also be provided in the Scheme. On the basis of principles set out in
the aforesaid decision in Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum, the jurisdiction to pay
interim compensation shall be treated to be part of the overall jurisdiction of the Courts trying the
offences of rape which, as pointed out above is an offence against basic human rights as also the
Fundamental Right of Personal Liberty and Life.”
The court also stated that:

“Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case in which there is a serious
allegation that Bodhisaltwa Gautam had married Subhra Chakraborty before the God he
worshipped by putting Vermilion on her forehead and accepting her as his wife and also having
impregnated her twice resulting in abortion on both the occasions, we, on being prima facie
satisfied, dispose of this matter by providing that Bodhisattwa Gautam shall pay in Subhra
Chakraborty a sum of Rs. 1,000/-every month as interim compensation during the pendency of
Criminal Cas in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Kohima, Nagaland. He shall also be
liable to pay arrears of compensation at the same rate from the date on which the complaint was
filed, till this date.”

1992 (1) Crimes 2 SC
1996 SCC (1) 490
Therefore it can be observed that the Hon'ble Courts have taken little softer view (with regard to
monetary aspect) when question of the award of compensation come under Cr.P.C. as compare
to when it come under Constitution.

Assessment of the Role of Legislative Frame work and Indian Courts:

The exit no doubt that Code of Criminal Procedure provided for the compensation to victim in
the year 1898, when even the concept has not developed properly but now it submitted that the
whole scheme under Cr.P.C. or P.O.A. needs renovation. The most important attack on the
present legislative frame work lies on the desertion given to the courts i.e. it depends upon them
to grant compensation and absence of recording any reason when they abstain them self from
grating compensation. Another criticism of the present legislative framework lies in the absence
of right of victim to claim compensation. Critics also argue for the absence of any institutional
scheme under the present legislative framework that has now become the important part of
victim- Crime relationalship in countries of southern hemisphere such as USA, UK, New
Zealand, France etc . The laxity on the part of Indian legislature is so much so that India has not
made any legislation to give compensation to victim of crime when accused is acquitted despite
of its obligation under various International Covenants. In this regard even Hon'ble S.C. in the
case of Delhi Domestic Working Forum v UOI17 has shown its concern in flowing words:

It is necessary, having regard to the Directive Principles contained under Article 38(1) of the
Constitution of India to set up Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Compensation for victims
shall be awarded by the court on conviction of the offender and by the Criminal Injuries
Compensation Board whether or not a conviction has taken place. The Board will take into
account pain, suffering and shock as well as loss of earnings due to pregnancy and the expenses
of child birth if this occurred as a result.

So this in brief set out the major defaults in the present legislative framework due to which the
whole concept of compensation has become akin to flop show in India. However it is to be noted
that part of responsibility of being the concept flop show lies on Indian judiciary as well, especial
the lower courts. In this regard the observation of Hon'ble S.C. in the case of State of Gujarat v
Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat is relevant where following was stated:

1995 SCC (1) 14
“Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 provides some reliefs to the victims as the
court is empowered to direct payment of compensation to any person for any loss or injury
caused by the offence. But in practice the said provision has not proved to be of much
effectiveness. Many persons who are sentenced to long term imprisonment do not pay the
compensation and instead they choose to continue in jail in default thereof. It is only when fine
alone is the sentence that the convicts invariably choose to remit the fine. But those are cases in
which the harm inflicted on the victims would have been far less serious. Thus the restorative
and reparative theories are not translated into real benefits to the victims.”

Case of Harikishan Singh is also of importance where the Hon'ble S.C. observed that:
“It is an important provision but courts a have seldom invoked it. Perhaps due to ignorance of the
object of it. It empowers the court to award compensation to victims while passing judgment of
conviction. In addition to conviction, the court may order the accused to pay some amount by
way of compensation to victim who has suffered by the action of accused. It may be noted that
this power of courts to award compensation is not ancillary to other sentences but it is in addition
thereto. This power was intended to do something to reassure the victim that he or she is not
forgotten in the criminal justice system. It is a measure of responding appropriately to crime as
well of reconciling the victim with the offender. It is, to some extent, a constructive the victim
crimes. It is indeed a step forward in our criminal justice system. We, therefore, recommend to
all courts to exercise this power liberally so as to meet the ends of justice in a better way.”

Moreover the comment High Court in case of In Re Drug Inspector is very important where it
was stated that efficacy of a law and its social utility depends largely on the manner4 and the
extent of its application by the courts . It was further stated that the good law badly administered
may fail its social purpose and if overlooked in practice fail in the purpose and utility. The Law
Commission of India in its 41st report clearly stated that our courts are not liberal in utilizing
these provisions and went to the extent of saying that it is regrettable that our courts do not
exercise their statutory powers under this section as freely and liberally as they could desire.

However in this regard it is to be noted that the attempt of Hon'ble S.C. and some of the High
Courts as discussed above clearly shows that they are championing the cause of victim even in
the given set up but still looking to the problem as a whole, inherent weakness on the legislative
framework as well as laxity on the part of court has made the proper functioning of whole
concept a distant dream in strict sense.

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS: It is need less to point out that the whole
legislative paradigm coupled with lack of judicial determination has exposed numerous flaws of
the present legal system about the compensation therefore there is need for revamping the whole
legal system once. The mandatory changes that are needed are as follows:

(i) The suggestion given by the law commission of India in its 42nd report on Indian
Penal Code must be taken in to consideration.
(ii) The law must also provide recording of reason for not providing or providing the
compensation as we have in the case of death sentence in Cr.P.C.
(iii) The law must also provide for institutional set up as we have in western countries.
(iv) If possible it would be better to give the compensation as a right to victim.


1. Constitutional Law by M.P. Jain

2. Criminal Law by K.D. Gaur
3. Code of Criminal Procedure by Batuklal