Ignoring the rights of rape victim
- Part 2 -

A Romen Kumar Singh *

Womenfolk staging a rally at Tamenglong to demand justice in May 2012 :: Pix - TSE

15. LEAKAGE OF PROCEEDINGS IN CAMERA IS CONTEMPT OF COURT.

In Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited V. Securities and Exchange Board of India, (2012) 10 SCC 603 the constitution Bench of the Supreme Court at Page.611 - Head Note G held: Section 7 of the contempt of Courts Act refers to leakage of information where as Section 4 refers to reporting of Court proceedings - Leakage defeats very purpose of hearing in chambers'or in camera - Hence, it is treated as a contempt of Court

16. PROCEDURE FOR WITNESSES IN CASE OF THREATENING.

A new Section 195A in the Criminal Procedure code has been inserted to make provision for a witness or any other person may file a complaint in relation to an offence under section 195A of the Indian Penal Cod~ for threatening any person to give false evidence.

17. VICTIMS'S RIGHT TO APPEAL

A new proviso has been inserted in Section 372 of the code of criminai Procedure whereby the victim shall have the right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation.

18. VICTIM COMPENSATION SCHEME

A new Section 357 A was incorporated in the code of criminal Procedure in order to provide for the State Government to prepare, in co­ordination with the Central Government, a Scheme called "Victim compensation Scheme" for the purpose of compensation to the victim or his dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime. With the introduction of this scheme the victim has been assured of a compensation amount.

19. In the following cases the Court directed to pay compensation to the victim under Section 357A of the code of Criminal Procedure:­

(1) Ramesh Manki V. State of Assam, 2012(2) GLT 316
(2) ShawaIi Kasta V. State of Assam, 2012(2) GL T 865
(3) Raju Sukram V. State of Assam, 2012(2) GLT 919
(4) Hira Maji V. State of Assam, 2012(4) GLT 970
(5) Bholen Boro V. State of Assam, 2012 (4) GLT 1128
(6) Asar Uddin (Md) V. State of Assam, 2012(4) GLT 11
(7) State of Assam V. Golbar Hussain, 2012(4) GLT 959
(8) Jalilur Rahman V. State of Assam, 2012(1) GLT 238
(9) Patal Barua V. State of Assam, 2012(4) GLT 949
(10) Bhola Tanti V. State of Assam 2012(5) GLT 307
(11) Phagu RajwarV. State of Assam, 2012(5) GLT 372
(12) Hiren Orang V. State of Assam, 2012(5) GLT 400
(13) Amit Lahkhowa V. State of Assam, 2012(5) GLT 897
(14) Padan Dhar V. State of Tripura, 2012(5) GLT 854
(15) Ratan Singh V. State of Assam, 2012(5) GLT 796
(16) Manglu Kumar V. State of Assam, 2012(5) GLT 785
(17) Suraj Lal Santal (Chaotal) V. State of Assam, 2012(5) GLT 769 (18) Intaz AU V. State of Assam, 2012(5) GLT 513
(19) Jahan Lagun V. State of Assam, 2012(5) GLT 519

20. TRAIL OF RAPE CASE TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN TWO MONTHS

A new proviso to Section 309 of the code of criminal Procedure has been incorporated for completing the trail of offence under Sections 376 to 3760 within a period of two months which is reproduced as below:­

"Provided that when the inquiry or trail relates to an offence under Section 376 to 3760 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the inquiry or trail shall, as far as possible, be completed within a period of two months from the date of commencement of the examination of witnesses"

21. NO ADJOURMENT SHALL BE GRANTED

Provided also that no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose only of enabling the accused person to show cause against the sentence proposed to be imposed on him.

PROVIDED ALSO THAT­

(a) No adjournment shall be granted at the request ofa party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party;

(b) The fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment;

Where a witness is present in a Court but a party or his pleader is not present or the party or his pleader though present in Court, is not ready to examine or cross-examine the witness, the Court may, if thinks fit dispensing with the examination-in-chief or cross examination of the witness, as the case may be.

22. LONG ADJOURNMENT OF TWO MONTHS FOR CROSS EXAMINATION OF WITNESS-DEPRECATED.

The victim of a crime is truly entitled to fair and speedy trial and the trial court is under an obligation to conduct trial on day to day basis once the statement of witness is recorded in conformity with the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court Trail courts should also be mindful that long adjournment of trial will have adverse serious consequences affecting the society at large:

In Akil V. State of NCT of Delhi, 2012(11) SCALE 709 at page. 313 held - Long adjournment of two months of cross-examination of a witness - Need to comply with Section 309, Cr.P.C. in letter and spirit - Court oblivious of specific Stipulation contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. which mandate the requirement of sessians trial to be carried an a day to-day basis - High Court directed to specifically follow the instructions issued by this Court in the decision reported in

(1) Raideo Sharma V. State of Bihar, 1999(5) Scale 156 and

(2) State of U.P. V. Shambhunath Singh, 2001(3) Scale 121

It is unfortunate that in spite of the specific directions issued by this Court and reminded once again in Shambhu Nath (supra) such recalcitrant approach was being made by the trail court unmindful of the adverse serious consequences affecting the society of large flowing there from. Therefore, even while dispasing of this appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned trial Judge, as confirmed by the impugned judgement of the High Court, we direct the Registry to forward a copy of this decision to all the High Courts to specifically follow the instructians issued by this Court in the decision reported in Rajdeo Sharma (supra) and reiterated in Shambhu Nath (Supra) by issuing apprapriate circular, if not already issued.

If such circular has already been issued, as directed, ensure that such directions are scrupulously followed by the Trial Court withaut providing scope far a deviation in following the procedure prescribed in the matter af a trial of sessions cases as well as other cases as provided under Section 309 of Cr.P.C. In tpis respect, the High Courts will also be well advised to use their machinery in the respective State Judicial Academy to achieve the desired result. We hope and trust that the respective High Courts would take serious nate of the above directions issued in the decisions reported in Rajdeo Sharma (Supra) which has been extensively quoted and reiterated in the subsequent decision of this Court reported in Shabhu Nath (Supra) and comply with the directions at least in the future years.

24. CONCLUSION

The rights of the victim such as, Victim Compensation Scheme, right to appeal, right to legal representation etc. although are incorporated by the Amendment Act af 2008 and directives of the Apex Court of India, all the victims are not aware of their rights and effective steps are required to be taken to spread legal awareness about the rights for an effective implementatian. Dispensing justice to victims of crime can no longer be ignored. The introduction of more victim rights will encourage victim participation and thus victim involvement can help restore a sense of control and enhance their faith in the criminal justice system. [Dr.Vikash Agarwal, "Repositioning THE RIGHTS OF VICTIMS OF CRIME. Calcutta Law Times, 2011]

For how long and on what justifications, legal, moral or pecuniary, can we afford to neglect victims of crime and their participation and reparation in the administration of the criminal justice system?

Concluded ...