 Good evening, friends, and amongst us we have Tanushri who teaches as an assistant professor in the CMR University. And those who have been connected with Beyond Law CLC, they know that we have been bringing off and on difficulty from the CMR University, who have been taking sessions on different perspectives. Tanushri as such doesn't require any introduction because she's a young, dynamic professor. Her assessment for the session would be needless to say that we are 100% that it will go well on the assessments or the manner of victim assessment. I request ma'am Tanushri to share her knowledge. Thank you for accepting our invite. Thank you so much, sir. Good evening to you and a very warm good evening to all the audiences who are listening to this session. My name is Tanushri and I am a faculty at CMR University and today the topic of our session will be the importance of victim impact assessment and the need for the same. So this is a topic which holds very close to my heart because being a student of victimology myself and seeing this shift which has come in the Indian criminal justice administration system and the shift being from accused centric to victim centric approaches, I'm very glad that I actually found this opportunity to talk on this topic. I'm extremely grateful to Vikas sir and with this, with the expression of this gratitude, I would like to start today's session. So just to give you an overview, a brief. So what we will be discussing in today's session relates to the overall introduction of the victim impact assessment. So we'll be dealing with various concepts such as first of all, what is victim impact assessment? I know it's not a very novel concept, but then I'm also aware that many people in this country even belonging in the legal field are not very much aware about what is this concept. And then we will be dealing with the history as well as the plausible future of victim impact assessment report, if at all it gets implemented in India. Okay, so let's begin the session, whatever questions if there are any I'll be taking at last. So let's begin the session. Before beginning, we need to understand our general layout of the criminal justice administration system of India. So whenever any crime happens, what do we call? We call it as a crime which has been committed against the state. We have read so many case laws, so many judgments we keep on reading. And what do we read? We read state of Karnataka versus the person X. Person X becomes the accused and the prosecution is from the state side. So it is the prosecution, it is the state who bears the expenses of the prosecution and it is the prosecutor's duty, prosecutor being the person. They are government advocates, they have a different channel of appointment and their own procedure, but they are basically government advocates who fights on your behalf. So it becomes state versus the accused, correct? But what happens that in this dynamic, the person who's actually affected, the victim gets lost somewhere, right? So for example, suppose rape is committed upon a woman. Now the name of the case, when the trial starts, the name of the case becomes state, some states suppose state of Karnataka versus the accused suppose Mr. X, correct? But who's the real victim? The real victim is the lady upon whom the offence of rape has been committed. And the whole point of beginning initiating this trial is to serve justice to the actual victim. Theoretically, we know we also follow the concept of that state becomes the victim. Why? Because we live in a social setup, all that jurisprudence of roles and it comes into play, we understand. But if we deep dive into the concept, the real victim is the lady upon whom the rape is committed. Now victim is not a person who only suffers physical injury, right? Victim can be a person who suffers physical injury, mental injury, psychological injury, emotional injury, as well as financial losses as well. Mostly when a crime is committed upon a person, it does not stop at that point of time. We are also aware of the concept of secondary victimization, primary victimization and secondary victimization. Primary victims and secondary victims. Primary victims is basically the person upon whom the offence has been committed and secondary victims are the family members who actually, who also faces the brunt of the offence, correct? And then secondary victimization is that when the crime is committed, that is the first time victimization and then when the lady goes on to file the FIR, to get the procedure initiated. Then again, she is faced with very vulgar and very repulsive comments, which reeks of stigma and taboo, which is still prevalent in the society. So all that concept we are aware of. When a crime is committed, it is the first time victimization and then the repercussions ensue. That is the starting, that is the triggering point for any person, for any victim. So that's how the concept of victimization comes into play. And victim being the real person, the real individual who actually gets affected from the offence takes a back seat in the criminal justice administration of India. We do know that we follow adversarial approach and we do know that it is little bit accused centric, it leans towards the accused. We follow the motto that even if 100 offenders are getting released, not even one innocent person should be convicted. And I completely abide and I completely adhere to this motto. I do not have any problem with this setup. But the problem starts when we start forgetting the real victim. When the victim becomes a mere witness, that shift comes with a lot of problem. A victim should remain a victim, not in the sense that he should always be a victim of one act or the other, no. But that importance for which the trial has started gets lost somewhere in the trial. So today we will discuss that why do we need to assess, why do we need, why there is an important need of victim impact assessment, especially before deciding the quantum of punishment during the pre-sentence hearing. That is the most important stage where the judge is deciding the quantum of sentence for the offender, where the conviction has been made and then the pre-sentence hearing is going on. There it is very important to discuss that victim impact assessment report plays a very important role. Now how can it play a very important role is also a question. What is victim impact assessment? Basically it has not been defined in India because in India we do not have any legislative backing for this report. There is no legislature which provides for this concept. So right now currently in the present old CRPC as well as the new Bharatiya Nagarik Naya Sahita, we do not have any provision for victim impact assessment report. So in India it is not defined. But there are several foreign and western jurisdictions who have defined what is victim impact assessment. So this is basically a process of evaluating and understanding the trauma, the mental, physical, psychological, financial, all that trauma that a victim has suffered. So basically it can be oral as well as a written document. Oral being where the victim will personally go and will deliver, will narrate a story. It has to be in a story format where the victim will go and he will narrate, he or she will narrate a story. That's how the crime was committed upon me and the spiralling of victimization has led to this present stage. And I request the honourable court to provide this and this proportionate punishment to the offender. When it is in a written form it is basically a format, a template which is shared by the courts. So in US, UK and Canada there is a proper, not only proper application of victim impact assessment and they have legislative backing upon this concept. But they also properly implement it and it forms part of a pre-sentence trial. It forms part of a pre-sentence trial where it is mandatory and incumbent upon the judge who is going to deliver the judgment to actually go through the victim impact assessment report, to understand the mental faculty of the victim at the given point of time and then to proceed and go ahead with the judgment. Correct? So this is basically just to brief again, a victim impact assessment report is a written or a oral assessment report where we try to analyse and understand the trauma which a victim has faced post the crime and how the crime has affected the victim mentally, physically, emotionally, psychologically and financially as well. So that is victim impact assessment report. Now in US the starting point of victim impact assessment report was in the US. So US we know it follows constitution and it has several amendments. Correct? So in US they used to follow victim impact assessment report but then came the case of Booth versus Maryland. In the case of Booth versus Maryland they challenged the constitutional validity of this report. They said that it is violating the 8th constitution amendment to the American constitution. Now the 8th amendment talks about that we should not allow anything which may implicate excessive bail, excessive fine or cruel or unusual punishment upon the offender. This is the 8th amendment to the American constitution. So in this case it was contended that the victim impact assessment report is violating this amendment. Why? Because the logic was that when after the trial during the time of announcing the quantum of punishment if the victim is coming forward and narrating a story of his pain is agony then it is certainly going to influence the mind of the jury or the trial or the jury or the judge. It is certainly going to influence their mind and hence the offender will be at the receiving point and he will be getting and he will be receiving the negative impacts of the scene. So then the issue of partiality was there that there will be an issue of biasness that just before pronouncing the judgment if the victim is coming and narrating its story it is definitely going to influence the mind of the judges. Hence in the case of Booth versus Maryland they struck down the concept of victim impact assessment. It was struck down. Then came the most landmark case in US and world history when it comes to the concept of victimology that is victim centric approaches that was the case of pain versus Tennessee. Now pain versus Tennessee came in 1991. In this judgment in this case the US Supreme Court completely overruled its previous decision in Booth versus Maryland and they held that there is nothing in the victim impact assessment report which is actually going to influence the mind of the judges. It is not like that the judges are not already aware of the facts which has been going on in a particular case. So there is no question of biasness which comes into picture and they also dealt in detail that what is the actual purpose of VIA report. VIA is victim impact assessment. So the actual purpose which was discussed in this case was that we do VIA so that victim takes the front rows. Victim gets the opportunity and victim feels associated and involved in his own case. Because I told you in adversarial system in India also what happens? Prosecution takes your case, state becomes the victim and victim becomes the witness. So this spiralling which happens somewhere or the other it affects the justice which is served to the victims. So US Supreme Court they discussed very beautifully that we are not digressing. We are not becoming regressive. We are not against the accused. We very well we are trying to withhold the rights of the accused but at the same time we cannot forget the victims as well. It is victims right to come forward and tell their story and it is their right to be engaged during their own trial. So after pain versus tenancy in 1991 the concept of VIA report was again reinstated into the US criminal justice administration system. And since then it has been following the US administration has been following it diligently. And there it has shown very impressive results as well. I told you several other western jurisdictions such as Canada, UK, Australia they also follow the same concept. Now you may ask one question to me. Actually two three question numerous questions you can ask that ma'am why do we need the victim to come forward and engage in the trial. When first of all first issue that when victim is the witness. He is actually getting a chance or he or she is actually getting a chance of narrating their own story. They are getting a chance they can become a witness they can go and tell before the court what happened and everything. So they are getting that participation that element of participation is there. Secondly when the government is taking so much of burden and they are providing prosecutors and they are providing that facility that you take a back seat. We will deal with your case I am giving you the advocate and you simply assist. Then why do we need to personally engage the victim where prosecutor can also do the same. Correct. Now to answer the first question that is why do we need to engage victims personally when they are already a witness. So for this it's very interesting there's a very fine line of difference which I hope that we all will understand that it's a huge difference when it comes to who is a victim and who is a witness. A witness is someone who's called upon and then he does not narrate his story. A witness is someone who will answer to your questions whatever chief cross is there he will answer to whatever is being asked by the advocate. Correct. And sometimes the person is grilled so much his or her responses are manipulated so much that the entire story from the beginning it completely changes till the time the trial reaches conclusion. Okay so a lot of manipulation a lot of intimidation happens in trial. A trial is not a very smooth flowing process. First of all it takes a lot of time in India. Indian judiciary is already over burdened and it takes a lot of time for a trial to get completed. Right so sometimes what happens that suppose a trial initiated in 2010 2010 and the judgment is being delivered in 2023. Chief crossed happened back in 2012. So the judge before pronouncing the judgment he's not very well aware sometimes they forget sometimes because judges are also human. Everyone who is involved in the process they all are humans they all are fallible. Judges are not infallible. Correct. So what happens that they also need to refresh their memory and who else can be a better choice than the victim himself to go ahead participate in his own trial and actually go ahead and refresh the memory of the judge. That see this this happened with me. I am telling you everything in detail you can try to verify the facts which I am telling and then you can go ahead with your own discretion and pronounce the quantum of sentence. The VIA report is a basically a assessment report which is a reference material. It does not imposes any restriction or any imposition on the judge to actually listen to what the victim is saying. Nobody is taking away the discretion of the judges. That discretion that supreme authority is always there. That is that will always lie with a judge to use their own discretion before pronouncing the quantum of sentence. So we as victimologist we are merely you know propagating and we are advocating the fact that at least listen to our victim. Don't forget them. Correct. Also when we read CRPC so in the previous CRPC when there is a trial before the court of session that this section 235 clause 2 which states that if the accused is getting convicted. It is incumbent upon the court and the court shall listen to the accused before delivering any quantum of sentence. Right. Where was the victim? Where is the victim? So the court the judge has to mandatorily listen to the accused before pronouncing the actual quantum of sentence. But there is no provision for the victim. I am not against the fact that accused is getting that right to participate. He should. But there is this principle of natural justice which is Audie Alterum Partum. And Audie Alterum Partum does not apply only in the initial stages of the trial. That principle should be maintained till the last stage of the trial. Final stage of the trial till the final judgment is not being pronounced. The victim also has the equal right to participate in his own trial. So section 235 clause 2 of the previous CRPC which is still in enforcement. It does not talk about the victim's right to participate in the sentence hearing. The new CRPC which has come which is basically Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sahita. In that also there is section 255 which talks about the participation. And it has definitely taken a progressive step. So section 255 of the new CRPC it does include prosecution and the defense. So both parties are included now. Again where is the victim? Defense they have included accused they have included and they have included prosecution. But my question is what about the victim? Why is there no provision for VIA reports as of now when the new CRPC was just the bill was just passed recently. It has become an act date of enforcement we still don't know. But it is 2024 now and still VIA is not getting a legislative backing in India. The second issue which I brought upon was that if prosecutors are there, if you are getting a chance to actually participate through your advocate, why do you need to take a front seat? This issue is very important because we have seen various cases in India and everywhere else also that where prosecutors gets disinterested in the case towards the end of the trial. So there will be disinterest. Also sometimes we have seen there have been cases of corruption where the prosecutors will collude with the defense, with the accused and they will present their case in a way so that either the accused will get acquitted or he will get away with some minor punishment. So that is why it is important to make the prosecutor also answerable. Who will make him answerable? The victim. If the victim is there standing before the judge and he is narrating his own story and the prosecutor who is his own advocate, he is narrating a different story. The judge will be knowing that there is some discrepancy and it will give the judge an opportunity to again assess and evaluate the course of the trial. So that is the reason that why do we need victims in taking the front seats? Also when it comes to sentencing, we all know there is this disparity, sentencing disparity in India. Now sentencing disparity is something, is a situation where suppose two similar offenses have been committed at two different places. They are very similar offenses, very similar degree of barbarity and inhumane offenses have been committed. But there will be huge difference in the punishment that has been awarded. So this is called as sentencing disparity. This is one more issue which we can deal with VIA reports. For instance, we can take the example of Khailanji Massacre case. The case of Khailanji Massacre which is CBI versus Sakuru Bhinjavar case. So the final decision came in 2019 which is a very recent decision only. In this case, we know that what happened that people, four innocent people belonging to the SC community, they were massacred by 40 miscreants, right? There were also allegations and proper evidences that the naked body of the females belonging to that SC community, they were paraded in the entire village. Now the trial court gave death penalty in this case but later the high court and the supreme court converted the death penalty to life imprisonment without remission. That is still 25 years, there will be no remission. This is the Khailanji Massacre case. Same amount of brutality, barbarity as Nirbhaya case. Nirbhaya case we all know, one girl was involved and we know what happened. We are well aware of the facts and circumstances of the case but their capital punishment was given. It has been executed also, correct? Why? Because a lot of public opinion was involved, right? So a lot of public media, media trials were also going on, concurrently along with the judicial trial. So both these situations, there one girl was involved, here four people belonging to SC community were involved. I am not weighing that which one is more barbaric. Both are equally inhumane offenses but then in one it was converted to life imprisonment. The another case, capital punishment was executed. Another instance I would like to discuss which is Senari Hathya Khan case in Bihar. Now Senari is a village in Jahanabad district of Bihar where there were some disputes going on between the Dalits and the forward community. Then what happened that 34 people belonging to 34 male belonging to a same caste, same forward caste residing in the Senari village, they were massacred by some miscreants, by Dalits, right? And this is not one instance. A lot of Hathya Khan's happened in Bihar in the name of these caste conflicts. So it was not only murder along with SC act was also involved, correct? So here also what happened that Supreme trial court gave death penalty and life imprisonment to few people, death penalty to few people. But when the case went to honorable Patna High Court, the Patna High Court acquitted all the accused and the reasoning which was given was that the sole conviction which was made was on the basis of test identification parade, TIP. It falls under section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act and they said that TIP cannot be the sole basis of awarding capital punishment. Okay, so all these cases shows that there is a lot of sentencing disparity in India and it's a different issue in itself. It's a very prominent, very concerning issue which happens in our country. But what is the solution? Now, there have been many different solutions, Malimat committee report and R.R. Krishnayur committee report that given several recommendations on how to combat, how to deal with these sentencing disparity. But what can be the most effective way? Suppose now in these cases, we introduce the concept of VIA. Victim is coming forward. Before deciding the quantum of sentence, he's narrating, he or she is narrating the entire story before the judge. All the memories are refreshed, right? And everything, if everything which the victim is telling is falling into place, the prosecution have been able to prove it diligently. It shows a very clear picture of the events which happened. So in that case, it can also help in reducing that sentencing disparity. It will help the judge. It will help the judges. Also, it also leads to empowerment of the victim themselves. They feel involved. They feel that they are participating. They are doing something to get justice, right? And they are not helpless. They are not sitting and waiting for justice to be served. But they are the front runners. So this shift is something which we require in the current criminal justice administration system of India. Now, when I say that our criminal justice administration is accused-centric, it is adversarial system. What I mean by this, that in the case of Edika, a mama versus state of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court discussed the importance of shifting from deterrent theory to reformist theory. Now, we know what is deterrent theory, what is reformist theory. Deterrent theory is basically you did something, I will punish you for that, so that people will be deterred from committing crime in future. It will create a fear in the society which will eventually lead to lesser number of crimes, correct? But then reformist theories say that we don't only have to punish the offenders, we have to reform the mindset as well, which now becomes the most important motive of every criminal justice administration, that we don't only have to punish, we have to change the mindset. We have to reform the offenders so that there is no recidivism. Recidivism means there should be no repeat offenders. The offenders, after getting out of prison, they should not repeat offenses. Okay, so in this case, the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of individualistic and personalistic approaches to imprisonment, that we will give such punishments, which will also be deterrent, but will form a mystic as well. Then came the case of Santa Singh v. State of Punjab. Now, in the case of Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court observed that if we do not hear the accused, during the course of pre-sentence hearing, it means that we are not following the modern concepts of penalogy. And we are going back in time to the regressive times, where we are not giving opportunity to the accused to present his side of the case. Okay, in this case, however, a very purposive interpretation of section 235, clause 2 of CRPC was given by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said that it will not only include the defense, but it will also include the prosecution. And the prosecution should also be involved and they should also come front and participate in the pre-sentence hearing. This was a very welcome step. This was very much appreciated in the legal community. But then again, there was no mentioning of the victims themselves. They spoke about prosecution, but nothing about the victims. Now, there is this one very important development which I would like to discuss, which is the case of Malikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka. It is a 2019 Supreme Court judgment, Malikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka, where the Supreme Court has elaborately discussed on the importance of VIA reports. The Supreme Court has said that in this present day and age, we cannot ignore the victims' perspective. We have to go ahead, we have to follow and we have to listen to what our victims are saying because they are the actual victims of the crime. And they should be the ones who should be happy and satisfied after the trial ends. So, in this case, the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of VIA reports and it actually requested the legislature to come up with something so that we can inculcate the same in our legislature, our statutes. Then in another case which is just Vinder Singh v. Navjo Siddhu. This is a 2022 Supreme Court case, a very recent Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court observed, I quote, any punishment which is disproportionately light or when the accused is either not punished or is awarded a comparatively minor punishment, it frustrates as well as humiliates the victim, unquote. So, this means that where you are letting the accused go and or you are giving very disproportionate punishment. What is proportionate and disproportionate punishment? Proportionate means basically if you committed a crime of a certain degree, punishment will be according to the degree of your crime, the proportionality of your crime. This proportionate means suppose one person committed a murder and he got away with two years of imprisonment. So, this is disproportionate punishment. So, there in this case Supreme Court observed that this does not only humiliates the victim, insults the victim, but this also frustrates the entire purpose behind the criminal trial which is ultimately to serve justice to the victims of crimes. Again, in the case of Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mehra, again 2022 Supreme Court very landmark judgment, Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mehra where the Supreme Court highlighted again reiterated the importance of victim participation at every stage of the trial. So, this case basically related to the participation of victim at the bail hearing, bail hearing phase. So, but the gist of the judgment also held that the concept of principle justice which one of the principle which is audiolterum partum starts from the beginning of the trial and it has to be maintained during the end of the trial, final stage of the trial and a victim is equally entitled to participate. Whether there is any bail hearing or sentence hearing, a victim has to be there. We have to listen to victim's side. The Delhi High Court in 2021 pronounced a judgment which was Karan versus NCT of Delhi, National Capital Territory of Delhi and there they actually came up with a template of victim impact assessment report. They came up with an annexure to the final judgment which included VIA report which there were several columns to that report. So the first one asked about the details, the facts of the crime. The second one spoke about the mental injury, then the financial injury, then emotional injury and like these there were many columns and this was the VIA report and the Delhi Supreme Court, Honorable Delhi Supreme Court it said that before every sentence hearing after an accused has been convicted it is mandatory it is mandatory for the District Legal Services Authority to come up with a VIA report and to produce it before the court so that the court can refer the same before pronouncing the quantum of sentence. Now, victim impact assessment report after discussing everything the concept and everything and the evolution through cases the focus of judiciary upon the VIA report we can say that it is not a very novel concept it is not a very new concept which has come into picture but it is something which has been there since ages but India lacks the legislature of India has still not come up with something a complete legislative backing which can actually support the VIA system. So the Law Commission of India in its 48th report 48th report way back in 1972 they highlighted the importance of VIA report and they recommended the parliament to come up with a statute which will also include VIA reports and it should be mandatory referred before deciding the quantum of punishment however that recommendation till the date it has not been accepted. Malimath committee report in 2003 it also recommended and highlighted the importance of the VIA report still not been implemented Ranbir Singh committee report it also highlighted the importance of VIA and that it is a high time that in India we must inculcate this assessment report in our criminal justice administration but still nothing has been done as I have discussed already that even in the new CRPC which is BNSS there has been no mention of VIA reports which is very disappointing because this is 2024 so much has been already discussed and stress has been put upon this by the supreme court still nothing has been done however there are few glimpses of VIA which we can find in one statute so we have SC and ST prevention of atrocities at 1989 in India it deals with SC-ST and atrocities which are committed upon them so they are specifically dealt under this special statute now in 2016 one amendment was brought to this act and section 15A was included now this section 15A says that a victim is entitled to be heard at the time of conviction or sentence it does not specifically talk about VIA it is not talking about VIA reports but it is making it mandatory for the courts who are dealing with these cases to actually listen to the victim before passing on any quantum of sentence and this concept is equivalent to VIA so this is the ultimate purpose of VIA reports so that there is victim participation so this is something this is one and only act in India which actually shows few glimpses of VIA we can discuss this juvenile justice care and protection act of 2015 now there under section 3 it talks about principal of participation principal of participation states that a child will be entitled to participate in any matter if his or her interests are getting affected it does not talk about anything specifically it does not talk about the quantum of sentence or any other stages during the trial it simply talks about the principal of participation which means that if we go by the constructive interpretation of the said statue we can reach the conclusion that if the child is the victim it is very the child is very much entitled to participate even before the quantum of punishment is getting decided also we can implement the same because it also deals with child victims so this was the domestic overview so how VIA what was the recommendation when it was recommended and why do we need it, what is the difference between victim and witness why we cannot solely rely upon the prosecution, why do we need victim engagement and everything which was the domestic setup which is still prevalent in India and we can conclude now that we don't have VIA pulsing but this concept is not only a domestic concept so it has a lot of international backing as well this is one of the fundamental concepts which also pertains to your human rights so participation or the autism these principles also relates to the rights of an individual so first international convention which is very very important for victims and it actually brought about a subject which was victimology was the universal declaration of basic principles of justice and for victims of crime and abuse of power came in 1985 after this 1985 convention only the definition of victim was added in our CRPC earlier victim was not defined in our CRPC so article 6 clause B to this universal declaration also talks about victim participation and the importance of victims engagement in the course of trial the second one which is a very important statute is Rome Statute the international criminal court Rome Statute rule 145 sub clause 1 sub clause C now of the rules of procedure and evidence also talks about the audiouterum part and victim participation and engagement in the crime during the course of trial and then the third one being the European Union directive on minimum standards for victims victims of crime this is a 2012 European Union directive which again reiterates the same thing that victims has equal rights of participating in the course of trial in India in 2020 Mr. Amar Patnaik who is a member of parliament from Rajya Sabha he introduced a private member bill which actually included the concept of VIA reports and he actually introduced that bill with a proper template and everything that this should be added but still nothing has been done and the bill has been rejected and even after I told you already that even after the new CRPC has come into picture there has been no mention of victim impact assessment which to be very honest is very disappointing and I really hope that in future there will be more focus more press upon this concept by the supreme court and legislature will one day come up mandatorily come up with this concept where we can actually include this report during the course of trial now one important one very important question can be that what can be the delivery methods of VIA how can we deliver like okay we are talking about this concept that there should be VIA reports and it should be placed before the court but how will we maintain the authenticity of the VIA reports so first method can be oral statement which the victim himself can come and give a oral statement before the court the second method can be a drafted written statement written statement also the victim can come and he can place it before the judge the third mode can be that the video recording video recording that audio video statement can also be recorded but then we have to be really careful because when it comes to electronic evidences we have section 65 A and B of the Indian evidence art which deals with the electronic evidences and admissibility procedure and everything and it can be very easily tampered so when it comes to audio video statement we need to be very cautious but then all these three modes can be there where we can actually made the efficient delivery of the VIA reports what can be the positives of VIA report because we are discussing so much about VIA the evolution how it came from US how it is being enforced in different western jurisdictions and why it is a sad state of affairs that it is still not date till it is not being implemented in India because first of all it empowers the victim when you engage the victim it grows the confidence of the victim and it places a lot of trust in the criminal justice administration of the country it is very important to maintain that trust within your own people and when you engage the people directly when you give them a platform to participate it empowers the victim which in turns which eventually empowers the judge or court how does it empowers the judge or court that it helps the judges in understanding in detail that what happened how did it happened if the judge had forgotten about it it acts as a refreshing of memory by the victim himself and nobody else can explain anything better than the victim himself so third it may affect the convict also why do I say this that now since we are shifting towards the reformist approach when the victim himself comes before the court he or she when he or she is narrating the entire story the accused is there he is listening to the pain the trauma the agony the victimization which the person suffered because of him this might also alter the mindset of the criminal this all this can alter the mindset of the person of the offender and he can actually has a he can actually go through a change of heart and which will fruptify the reformist theory reformist approach so that is also very important and as I already discussed that it can reduce the disparity in sentencing because you have one person who is narrating everything your memory is getting refreshed this will help you understanding everything in detail the facts and circumstances and it will help the judges in reaching a better conclusion now when I say that there are certain positives there will be certain negatives as well every coin has two sides cross is also there cons are also there so some of the cons can be that it can become a tool of vengeance so many people many legal scholars they argue that it will become a tool of vengeance and victim will exaggerate their story so that the person that used will receive a higher degree of punishment and it can become a tool of vengeance it can be used as a revenge mechanism the second con can be that this is something which is beyond the scope of consideration for punishment so this I think I have already discussed that this is a reference material this is something which the judges are not bound to follow the judges are not bound to abide and go by whatever the victims excuse me whatever the victims are saying so it is a reference material so that also has to be kept in mind the judges have to be very rational very balanced in their approach and they have to be very discreet they cannot sway away with the emotions so that is there and certain procedural limitations can also be there because in India we know our judiciary is already overburden and adding one more step can actually leads to certain procedural limitations but I believe that all these cons can be easily tackled if we go ahead with a proper implementation of the procedure so this is an added step no doubt but it's a very convenient and very less time taking step if we go by the written statement it will take one day for the judge to read that report it's not like that it's 100 pages report maximum it will go up to 20-25 pages it will take maximum half an hour to read that report it is a very efficient and convenient way of refreshing the memory and also including victims why including victims is important again we are circling back to the initial conversation initial point of discussion that when crime happens there are two people involved three basically if we deal like the state setup if we see victim, criminal and the state but the person who actually faces the brunt of the crime is victim so victim has to be included in the step in the criminal trial and he has to be equally made a participant in during the course of trial and that I believe is going to change the course of our criminal justice administrative system because that feeling of anticipation that feeling of entitlement which will come is really going to shift the mindset of the victims so what happens that victims has certain mindsets that no nothing is happening in that trial nobody is doing anything I will also not waste my time so this mindset sometimes hampers the criminal justice administration so we need to be proactive when it comes to criminal trials because it's not a civil trial it's not that property is involved it's not that real state is involved people are involved in criminal trials and we have to take very humanistic approach very human approach very individualistic approaches we need to understand the victim we need to give them the opportunity to present their own case and yeah so that is something which we need to shift I am not saying that we have to do a complete overhauling of our criminal system I think it is working quite well keeping in mind the number of judges we have the ratio of judges we have to the ratio of cases but then it's also important to be proactive to be innovative as I always say in my classes as well that a society a progressive society cannot be stable it has to be dynamic it has to it needs to change with the evolution and the changes that are coming up in the society that are coming up in the country and we need to accept more proactive and reformative approaches which is finally going to help the future of our criminal justice administration system so that was the end of discussion from my side if any questions are there I would like to take thank you thank you just watching it on the youtube that people were actually having it and once they have a query simply set the source that people have actually understood the concept the way you have explained it we are thankful on behalf of beyond law CLC for sharing your knowledge it was my pleasure sir absolutely my pleasure I am extremely grateful