But, the tyranny appeared in the area of compensation is the judicial reluctance/failure to grant compensation under section 357 of Cr.P.C. to victims of crime despite the provision conferred upon the judiciary to, in its discretion, award it in appropriate cases. However, it is submitted that it will not be fair to attach the liability for this mis-governance of award of compensation to the judiciary alone. It is contributory rather than a solo failure. This highly dangerous practice prompts the judiciary to strike a note of caution against the unwillingness of the courts to exercise the power under it and to refashion it. This trend and tyranny are discussed in detail and examined in depth in the coming parts.
II. A glimpse of history, international principles and practices
The concept of compensating victims for the loss they suffered and to restore them by making monetary amends is justified and encouraged because of the “benefit to the victims, possible deterrent effect on the offender or on the public, the possible educative or preventive effect on public morality, the possible reformative effect on offender of ill-gotten gains and the view that compensation has an ‘intrinsic moral value of its own’.”
…show more content…
It can be seen that compensation to victims has been in existence in ancient societies also. “The Hammurabi Code of ancient Babylonian makes the earliest reference to governmental compensation to crime victims.” In the case of a murder, the territorial governors were to pay the heirs compensation, a specific sum in silver from the treasury. The seventh century England in the Anglo Saxon period had a system of victim compensation. Compensation to relatives of victims of murder was enforced in the Common Law of Middle