英语论文网

shall be done with the help of the opinions of scholars and academicians, along with the reports of the Malimath Committee, and the 2008 amendment to the CrPC. Also, comparisons may be drawn with criminal justice systems of other countries to determine alternatives that may work well in the Indian scenario.

Chapter 1

已存在的提交警方报告中被害者的权利：条款和案例法-Existing rights of the victim in filing of police report: provisions and case law

Rights of an informant are manifest in quite a few provisions of the CrPC. For example, section 154 provides that any information given to a police officer with regard to a cognizable offence must be put into writing by the officer, and be read over and signed by the informant and a copy of that is to be given to the informant. [6] But does this garner any right to the victim? An informant may be the victim or anyone who happened to witness the crime. In case of the latter being the informant, the right is of the informant and not the victim.

With regard to filing of police report, it is section 173 that states the procedure. 173(2)(ii) provides that when the information provides information to a police officer, the latter is obligated to communicate to the informant the action that he has taken with regard to the information after he or she has completed the investigation. Even this provision, however, does not provide particularly for the victim but for the informant who may not be the victim.

This blindness of the criminal justice system towards the needs of the victims has been affirmed in the 1985 case called Bhagwant Singh v Commissioner of Police. [7] In this case, the question that had come up before the court was whether after investigation, when the police submits a report concluding that there is no offence, the Magistrate can simply drop the proceedings without intimating the same via notice to the informant or the injured or the relatives of the injured when the injured is deceased.

The court said that a reading of the provisions of Part XII of CrPC indicated that the informant did not fade away the lodging of the First Information Report. The reason for such provisions is that it is the informant who sets into motion the investigation, so he must know what the result of the investigation is. When the magistrate on the basis of the police report decides not to take cognizance, the interests and initiatives of the informant are crucially affected. Thus it is only fair that the informant be notified and given an opportunity to be heard when the police and Magistrate have concluded to dismiss the information.

However, the court also says that it is not the same for the injured or his relatives. They do not have any such interests in the trial as they have played no role in it. So it lays down that although the informant should be served with a notice if the case is to be dropped, it may not be so for the injured or his relatives.

What this brings me to conclude is that even the judiciary was of the view that the victim has no stand in a criminal trial. Their verdict was based solely on the interests of the informant. Justice and retribution as goals of a suit were clearly not a consideration.

In a latter case: Shri Bodhisattwa Gautam v Miss Shubhra Chakraborty, [8] the Supreme Court makes a small step towards recognizing the needs of a victim. It says that wh