Mainstreaming victims of crimes-It is time to make victim impact statements mandatory

• In Mallikarjun Kodagil (Dead) v. State of Karnataka (2018), the Supreme Court stressed the need to have a victim impact statement “so that an appropriate punishment is awarded to the convict”.
• This throws up many issues that are of interest to the victims of crimes.
• The term victim came to be defined in criminal law only in 2009 in India.
• The victim of a crime is never heard as a victim during the trial of a case, but as a witness.
• As the victim is represented by a prosecutor, her concerns as well as the impact of her victimisation remain unexpressed.
• By and large, the police, prosecutors and courts do not have any substantive legal obligation towards crime victims.
• Indifference to crime victims remains deep-rooted in the accused-centric criminal justice system.
• ‘Secondary victimisation’ takes place when the agencies of the criminal justice system treat victims of crime unfavourably, or marginalise them during the trial.

         Marginalised during trial

• The trial process is organised in such a manner that the personal appearance of the victim at all the crucial stages is restricted.
• Crimes are registered in the form of sections of the Indian Penal Code (in numbers) which do not mean anything to the victims of crime in terms of their impact.
• There is no way to assess the impact suffered by a victim.
• And whatever little is tried in this direction is always through a third party, such as a prosecutor or judge, who is invariably incapable of registering the aftermath of victimisation.
• The UN 1985 Declaration of Basis Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power effectuated a movement for victim empowerment.
• That led to significant reforms in the criminal process.
• It enabled victims to have rights and reasonable protections, and assistance and participation in the system.
• It also made a powerful plea to provide a voice to the victims of crime during the trial stage.

         Deciding the quantum of sentence

• Hearing the victim in person or through a victim impact statement at the stage of sentencing could be crucial.
• After a criminal defendant is found guilty or pleads guilty and is convicted, a judge decides on the appropriate punishment.
• The decision about punishment is a complex one. The judge needs to consider the adequacy of the sentence as Indian laws do not follow a fixed punishment model. Instead, there is a scale of punishment and the court decides the quantam of punishment according to this scale.
• A victim impact statement will help the court take a balanced view at this stage.
• Hearing the victim during the sentencing will help the court decide the quantum of punishment as well as assess the amount of compensation to be ordered.
• The U.S., Canada, Australia, and many countries in Europe have made victim impact statements mandatory.
• It is time for India to do so too. The victim has a right to speak and the nation has a responsibility to listen.

The Hindu