Justice for Whom? Missing Voice in Our Criminal Justice System

In Bangladesh, justice is traditionally measured by the punishment handed down to the guilty. A conviction, a sentence and a fine mark the formal end of a criminal case. But for the real person behind the case – the victim or their family, the question remains painful and mostly unanswered: what did they truly receive from this justice? The answer is somewhat frustrating.

In the current structure of our criminal justice system, crime is seen as an offense against the State. The role of the victim ends with their testimony, although in practice, victims in Bangladesh often have to make an extra effort to seek justice. Once the prosecution secures a conviction, it is usually professed by the state that justice has been served. But for the mother who lost her only son in an unintended clash despite not being involved, or the man who was permanently injured or lost an eye or a limb at the hands of hijackers, dacoits or gangsters while walking on the road at night or even while inside his own home, can justice without addressing the harm suffered by the victim truly be considered fair justice?

A prison sentence may remove a threat from society for some time or some years, but it does nothing to repair the shattered lives left behind. Take the case of a young man who lost both legs in a land dispute: the trial lasted five to seven years, the attacker was jailed, but the victim received no medical or financial support. In another case, a small businessman, the sole breadwinner, was killed in a political clash, leaving his wife and minor child to fight for justice for years. Although the offender was punished, the family received no compensation. Can such outcomes be called proportionate and fair justice?

These are not isolated cases. These cases reveal a gap in the existing laws and the lack of timely and adequate compensation for victims. Although Section 545 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, authorises courts to direct that all or part of a fine imposed on an offender be used to compensate the victim or defray prosecution expenses, in the present context, its practical effectiveness is significantly constrained by Section 32 of the same Code, which limits magistrates’ authority to impose fines, capped at Tk2,000 for Third Class, Tk5,000 for Second Class, and Tk10,000 for First Class Magistrates, including Chief Judicial and Chief Metropolitan Magistrates.

Compounding the problem, Bangladesh lacks a standardised method to assess the actual losses incurred by victims or the true cost of prosecution. Medical bills, psychological trauma, loss of income and funeral expenses are rarely accounted for. As a result, even when fines are recovered, the courts lack a framework to decide how much should be allocated to victims. Although Section 31 of the CrPC gives Sessions Courts and the High Court Division full authority to impose any sentence permitted by law, including fines, the discretionary power under Section 545 is less and infrequent in practice. Although there are special laws, such as the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjaton Daman Ain of 2000 and the Acid Control Act of 2002, which contain provisions for compensation and rehabilitation, they cover only a narrow subset of crimes and lack universal enforcement mechanisms.

In contrast, many countries around the world have recognised this flaw and corrected it. In India, Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires every state to set up a Victim Compensation Scheme, funded and monitored by the State Legal Services Authority. Courts are empowered to recommend compensation even when the offender is unknown or acquitted. In the United States, the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) funds state-run programmes that cover medical, counselling and funeral costs, even in the absence of an offender conviction, using fines from federal offenders. Canada and Australia operate provincial and state-level schemes that offer similar support, such as psychological care, income loss and relocation, based on credible evidence of victimisation, not necessarily a court verdict. The United Kingdom runs the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA), which pays victims of violent crimes, regardless of whether the offender is caught, prosecuted or convicted. In Germany, the Crime Victims Compensation Act (OEG) ensures victims of intentional violent crimes receive state-funded medical, psychological and pension support.

At the international level, the United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power (1985) urges states to provide financial compensation to victims of serious crimes when it cannot be obtained from offenders. Similarly, Article 75 of the Rome Statute empowers the International Criminal Court (ICC) to award restitution, compensation and rehabilitation to victims, with support from the Trust Fund for Victims (TFV).

It is time for Bangladesh to move from discretion to duty. There is a need for a national Victim Compensation Policy or Rules, which can be effectively developed by incorporating lessons and best practices from international experience. This legal framework should guarantee compensation as a right, not a favour, and apply to victims of serious offenses, including physical assault, murder, rape and organised violence. In addition, a Victim Compensation Fund may be created and managed by either the Ministry of Law or the Supreme Court, supported by the state budget, fines and donor assistance, and can make payments for medical care, rehabilitation, education and livelihood support. At the district level, a Victim Service Centre may be established under the chairmanship of a district judge, who can assess claims through a transparent process, either directly or via their representatives. Provisions may be incorporated allowing interim compensation during ongoing trials to cover urgent expenses. In the same way, the relevant section of the existing CrPC (1898) may be amended to meet the demands of time.

Now is the time to take the right initiative. Punishment alone cannot fulfil the true promise of justice. The victim deserves more than watching their offender go to jail. If the offender cannot pay through fines or property, the State should step in to ensure that victims are fairly compensated to help them heal from their suffering. Compensation is not merely an act of charity—it is a legal and moral necessity. Without it, justice remains incomplete, and the voice of the victims, the true stakeholders, remains unheard.