by Police - Bureau of Police Research and Development
by Police - Bureau of Police Research and Development
by Police - Bureau of Police Research and Development
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
The Indian <strong>Police</strong> JournalAssembly. Mr. Justice Chinnappa Reddy speaking for the court,observed :“When a person comes to us with a complaint that he has beenarrested <strong>and</strong> imprisoned with mischievous or malicious intent<strong>and</strong> that his constitutional <strong>and</strong> legal rights were invaded, themischief or malice <strong>and</strong> the invasion may not be washed away <strong>by</strong>his being set free. In appropriate cases, we have the jurisdictionto compensate the victim <strong>by</strong> awarding suitable compensation.”In Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty 14 , a case involvingrape <strong>of</strong> a woman, The Supreme Court ordered that the accused shallpay an interim compensation <strong>of</strong> Rs 1,000/- per month to the victim othis crime (i.e. rape) during the entire period <strong>of</strong> trial proceedings. Thecourt, inter alia observed:“Rape is a crime not only against the person or a woman, it is acrime against the entire society. It destroys the entire psychology<strong>of</strong> a woman <strong>and</strong> pushes her into deep emotional crisis. It is,therefore, a most dreaded crime. It is violative <strong>of</strong> the victim’smost cherished right, namely, Right to Life, which includes Rightto Live with human dignity as contained in Article 21 <strong>of</strong> theConstitution.”The court in this case further noted that compensation to victim under convicted. It emprasized that there is no reason to deny the court, theright to award interim compensation, which should also be providedin rape cases.In the case <strong>of</strong> Dr. Jacob George v. State <strong>of</strong> Kerala 14 , the deceasedhad undergone an operation for aborting the child, but soon afterthe operation, her condition got worsened <strong>and</strong> she died due to somereaction <strong>of</strong> the medicines given to her. The Supreme Court in thisRs. one lakh, to be paid to the minor son <strong>of</strong> the deceased. The courtconvict (appellant) had already undergone. The court noted that themain object <strong>of</strong> the criminal justice is to provide compensation to thevictims <strong>of</strong> crime.Responding to the question whether the compensation paid <strong>by</strong> theHegde <strong>of</strong> the Supreme Court in State <strong>of</strong> Maharashtra v. ChristianCommunity Welfare Council <strong>of</strong> India 16 , held that it will depend on50 January - March, 2013
Change language