The basic precondition for sustainable economic development is rule of law. In societies with a weak system, those that lack the resources for or access to the judiciary are often denied the safeguard of their fundamental rights.

Why Crime?
Theory of injustice or failure of our legislature, administration, and our judiciary. No doubt another reason is poverty, greedy, illiteracy, and the main thing our administration does not protect is the right of another.

If a person is born in a society they have equal right to avail all the right and opportunity which is given by our state or statutory provisions. An Integrated Systems Theory of Antisocial Behavior explains why some people are more susceptible to antisocial behavior than others. Risk factors that increase the probability of antisocial behavior are identified, and supply an in-depth understanding of what produces criminality, delinquency, and deviance.

It is estimated that nearly 4 billion people around the world don't enjoy the protection provided by the laws. The courts in India have purported the necessity to recognize the rights of prisoners and improve their conditions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has affirmed the essential rights of prisoners - there might be several factors that lead a prisoner to commit a criminal offense but a prisoner is required to be treated as a person's being entitled to all or any the essential human rights, human dignity and human sympathy.

It's further directed the Ministry of Home Affairs and States to take measures to improve the condition of prisons through regular audits, hiring and training of staff, implementation of the National Model Prison Manual, and appointment of Board of Visitors to ensure proper inspection, etc..[1]

Introduction
There is a very thin difference between right and omission of crime. In the early era no hast and fast concept of crime and right. They were mainly indulged in hunting and gathering food eventually people aware of their rights and duties simultaneously concept of crime emerged. As we have a number of rights increases, same way number of crimes reported.

Began with the discussion of some questions such as why crime? Why do we need to protect the rights? What human action constitutes a crime. Or our statutory provisions decide which action falls under the ambit of crime. Or our moral principle decide. A very famous philosopher Bentham's version of the utilitarian method society achieves the higher principle of morality.

Means everyone obeys their right and duties and follows the moral principle. At the end of the day, we achieve a sanction-free society. But unfortunately, it seems impossible. When we go through the work of different philosophers we found that different types of theory such as:
Situational Action Theory (SAT):
It is a general, dynamic, and mechanism-based theory of crime and its causes. It is general because it proposes to explain all kinds of crime (and rule-breaking more generally). It is dynamic because it centers on analyzing crime and its changes as the outcome of the interactions between people and their environments. It is mechanism-based because its explanation focuses on identifying key basic processes involved in crime causation.[2]

Demonology Theory:
It used to be thought that criminal behavior was the result of a possessed mind and/or body and the only way to exorcise the evil was usually by some torturous means.

Sigmund Freud Psychological Theory:
Persons with overdeveloped superegos feel guilty for no reason and wish to be punished in order to relieve this guilt they are feeling and committing crimes is a method of obtaining such desired punishment and relieving the guilt.

Yochelson and Samenow:

• The theory of free will to explain criminal behavior
• The roots of criminality lie in the way people think and make their decisions.
• Criminals think and act differently than other people, even from a very young age.
• Criminals are, by nature, irresponsible, impulsive, self-centered, and driven by fear and anger. etc[3]

The same way there is the various concept of right morality is the higher principle of right. A right is described as an entitlement or justified claim to a certain kind of positive and negative treatment from others, to support from others or non-interference from others. In other words, a right is something to which every individual in the community is morally permitted, and for which that community is entitled to disrespect or compulsorily remove anything that stands in the way of even a single individual getting it.

So there are several theorists given theory of right
According to Bentham:
Utilitarianism Is the utility principle. Utilitarianism is solely consequentialist; the justice or injustice of an action or state of affairs is determined exclusively by the consequences it brings about. If an action maximizes utility, it is just.

Kantianism theory:
The right action, therefore, is that which is done in conformity with our moral duty, regardless of consequence.

Laski's Theory of Rights:
He describes rights as those conditions of social life without which no man can seek, in general, to be himself at his best. Laski calls rights as conditions of social life. In the last, we can analyze how the physical action of human turn into crime. One side of the right of theory is which persons have the right to do things for their survival another side you have to follow moral duty you can not breach otherwise you commit a crime.

Fact And Circumstances [4]
Who will decide this specific human action fall under the crime? Ultimately this is decided by our legislature or statutory provisions on the basis of categorization of human conduct. What if those actions infringed the equality principle and were morally wrong but did not constitute a crime in statutory provisions. The same way our lawmakers frame a law But I am still confused about what human action (crime) is a crime or it depends upon time and circumstances.

Let's understand the consequential moral reasoning:

• Suppose you are the driver of a car, and your car is hurding down the track at sixty miles per hour and at the end of the track, you notice five workers working on the track you tried to stop but you cannot. Your brake does not work you feel desperate because you know that if you crash into these five workers they will all die. You feel helpless until you notice that there is off to the ride sidetrack at the end of that track there is one worker working on the track, your steering wheel works so you can turn the car if you want to on the side track killing the one but sparing the five.
  What would you do? As per principle what is the right thing to do? Why?
   
• In another case you are an onlooker and you standing on a bridge overlooking a car track and down the track comes to a car at the end of the track there are five workers working while off to the track there is one person working. The brakes do not work, the car is about to careen into five and kill them now you are not driver, you feel helpless until you notice the standing next to you leaning over the bridge - is it very fat man and you could give him a shove he would fall over the bridge on the track, the car ran over. He would die but he would spare the five.
  In the Same question what would you do?
   
• Let's another situation -you are a doctor in an emergency room and six patients come to you, they have been in a terrible accident five of them sustained moderate injuries but one is severely injured. You could spend all day carrying for one severely injured victim but in that time they would die or you could look after five than during that time that one would die. To whom would you save?
   
• In the last you are a transplant surgeon and you have five patients each in desperate need of an organ transplant in order to survive one needs a heart, one lung, one a kidney, one a liver, and the fifth one a pancreas. And you have no organ donors you are about to see you they die and them it occurs you that in the next room there is a healthy guy who came for checkup and he is taking nap, you could go in very quietly and yank out the five organs, that person would die but you can save thee five.

The same question is here what would you do? And what would your reasoning?

Right under which protected by the constitution of India

1. Protection against Ex-post Facto Law
   An ex-post-facto law is a law that imposes penalties retrospectively positive in nature means in favor of the accused i.e. on acts that were committed before the passing of the present legislation. Article 20 (1) of the Indian Constitution provides that no person shall be convicted of any offense except for the violation of law in force at the time of the commission of an act charged as offense nor shall be subjected to any penalty which is greater than the one which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time when the offense was committed. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 also protect the Ex-post facto laws under Art 11 para 2[5]
    
2. Right against Self-incrimination
   This article protects the accused from the compulsion of giving testimony that may expose him to prosecution for crime. This is the duty of the prosecution to prove the offense. Article 20(3) of the Indian constitution provides that no person accused of any offense shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
    
3. Right to the arrested person to be informed of the ground of arrest
   Article 22 of the Indian constitution provides that a person arrested for any offense under any ordinary law be informed as soon as possible the grounds of his offense. Moreover, section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code also provides the same. These grounds of arrest have to be communicated to the accused in the language understood by him the non-compliance of which shall lead to violation of the constitutional requirements.
    
4. The arrested person should be produced before the magistrate
   Article 22 (2) provides that an arrested person must be taken to the magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest. A similar provision has also been incorporated under section 56 of CrPC. It is the duty of the police officer while making an arrest without a warrant to produce the person before the magistrate having competent jurisdiction in the case without any unnecessary delay and also by compiling with the provisions of bails.
    
5. Right to a speedy trial
   As it is commonly said the justice delayed is justice denied it is the fundamental right of the accused that the trial of the case should be conducted expeditiously. In Hussainara Khatoon (IV) V. State of Bihar[6] the Supreme Court declared that speedy trial is an essential ingredient of 'reasonable, fair and just procedure guaranteed by Article 21 and that it is the constitutional obligation of the state of devise such a procedure as would ensure speedy trial to accused. It is also the constitutional obligation of the court, as the guardian of the fundamental rights of the people, as a sentinel on the qui vies, to enforce the fundamental right of the accused to a speedy trial by issuing necessary directions to the State.[7]
    
6. Victims of crime vis-à-vis the Constitutional law.
   The Indian constitution contains various provisions which endorse the principle of victim compensation. Article 41 which imbibes victimology in a wider perspective mandates inter alia that the state shall make effective provisions for securing public assistance in case of disablement and in other cases of undeserved wants. Article 51-A makes it a fundamental duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment… and to have a comparison for living creatures and to develop humanism.
   
   If empathetically interpreted and imaginatively expanded, one can find here the constitutional beginnings of victimology in the opinion of Krishna Iyer. [8] Further, the guarantee against unjustified deprivation of life and liberty (Article 21) has its elements obligating the State to Compensate victims of criminal violence, as stated by D.D. Basu.[9]
    
7. The role of justice in overcoming poverty
   Justice is the idea that all people, every place in the world, have the right to a life of quality. This means a life free from poverty, violence, demarcation, or mortal rights violations. A world where justice exists is a world where all people are included in society and all people can claim their rights to education, sanctum, and health care anyhow of how poor or rich they are Moment the connection between poverty and crime is inversely strong, estimates of the number of poor people in the felonious justice system range from two-third to eighty percent. So the maturity of people with whom the system deals are primarily poor.
   
   After two years of comprehensive negotiations and discussions, the members of the UN have agreed on a framework for global development efforts which is called the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In societies with the weak legal systems, those who lack the resources for or access to the judiciary are often denied the safeguard of their fundamental rights.[10]
    

Faith of people on the criminal justice system
The government of India constituting the committee on reforms of the criminal justice system, chaired by justice V.S Malimath was uncharacteristic candid in its lamentation that People by and largely lost confidence in the protecting the right and securing the justice. People feel ignored and are crying for attention and justice. [11] on the recommendation of the law commission of India in relation to wetness protection, the Malimath Committee concludes that time has come for a comprehensive law being enacted for the protection of the witness and members of his family.[12]

In 2003 the Parliament amend the Criminal law to insert the sec. 164-A and sec.344-A in the Cr.P.C to protect the issue of witnesses hostile. Moreover, sec. 195-A proposed in I.P.C deals with the threatening or inducing of any person to give false evidence. This response of the government is not only ad hoc but also inadequate as it fails to address the whole range of issues by victims of crime.

Custodial Death

Police excesses in India resulted not only in third-degree methods but also in custodial rapes and death. Many cases of custodial deaths may not have been seen the light of the day and may have gone unreported and unpunished. It is the duty of the police for the safety of prisoners and Rule 48 of Madras Prisons rule framed under the Prisons Act makes the police statutorily responsible for the safe custody of the prisoners while in jail. No doubt here not only death of a person but also the death of person's right and somewhere crime happen. Crime is nothing hitting a Sindh one's personal right or trespassing the personal space of persons.

In-State Of Andhra Pradesh V. Venugopal And Others

The Supreme Court reversed the order of acquittal of three police officers who indulge in the torture of the accused in police custody and sentenced them to 5 years imprisonment. [13]

In Another Case State Of Uttar Pradesh V. Ram Sagar Yadav
The case of trespass accused was beaten to death by the police for not having obliged their demands of bribe and for reporting the demand of bribe to the S.P. The Supreme Court set aside the order of acquittal passed by the High Court and restored the conviction of the session Judge u/s 304 of IPC. But Supreme Court felt that accused should be convicted under sec.302 of IPC.[14]

Similar Case of Challa Ramakenda Reddy and others V. State of A.P
Where a peculiar case of death of a person in Police custody caused by miscreants.[15]

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966)
The ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can be achieved only if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights.

Article 7
Everyone has the right to just conditions of work; fair wages ensuring a decent living for himself and his family; equal pay for equal work; safe and healthy working conditions; equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted; rest and leisure.

Article 11
Everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing. Everyone has the right to be free from hunger.

The space of rights rests on three principles

1. Autonomy principle: we all have our own lives to lead; the space of rights must give us substantial freedom to do so, while also holding us accountable for our choices.
2. Equality principle: we are all fundamentally equal as members or citizens of the space of rights.
3. Welfare principle: our welfare matters and that value affects the rights we have[16]

Conclusion
Everywhere within the world, have the proper to a lifetime of dignity. This means a life free from poverty, violence, discrimination or human rights violations. The right to access justice is one of the essential fundamental rights of all criminal justice systems. The protection of fundamental rights through the criminal justice delivery system is an important feature of any system governed by the rule of law. There are many rights such as natural rights, udhr, legal rights, constitutional rights, etc. but the reasoning behind every right is to protect the freedom, status, and dignity of people.

The main objectives of the criminal justice system can be categorized as follows:

• To prevent the occurrence of crime.
• To punish the transgressors and the criminals.
• To rehabilitate the transgressors and the criminals.
• To compensate the victims as far as possible.
• To maintain law and order in society.
• To deter the offenders from committing any criminal act in the future.

Today in every step of life individual is faced with the prospect of violation of his fundamental rights not only by the other individuals but also by the numerous social institutions which are founded with the sole aim of defending such rights. The protection of fundamental rights through the criminal justice delivery system is an unavoidable feature of any rule-of-law system.

The assumption of innocence, the right to remain silent, and the burden of proof are all fundamental pillars on which the criminal justice system is built today. One of the most basic fundamental rights in any criminal justice system is the right to access justice. Adequate access to justice also necessitates effective access to victims.

End-Notes:

1. SC Order in Re - Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons dated 2th May 2017. W.P.(C) No.406 of 2013
2. https://oxfordre.com/criminology/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore-978
3. https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/sociology/crime-and-deviance/why-do-people-commit-crime
4. 1978, first formulated a trolley case. But Foot left a driver in control and saw it as a choice between killing one or killing five. It was Thomson, 1976, who first put the responsibility on the shoulders of a bystander at a switch, thereby raising the problem of justifying the killing of one to save five.
5. Universal Declaration Of Human Rights 1948
6. AIR 1995 SC 366
7. S. Guin v. Grindlays Bank Ltd., 1986 SCC(Cri) 64: (1986) 1 SCC 654: 1986 Cri LJ 255; Madheshwardhari Singh v. State of Bihar, 1986 Cri LJ 1771 (Pat), Mihir Kumar Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, 1990 Cri LJ 26 (Cal).
8. V.R.Krishna Iyer, A Burgeoning Global Jurisprudence of Victimology and some compassionate Dimensions of India Justice to victims of crime, 1999
9. D.D.Basu, Constitutional Law of India,223 , (Wadhwa & Co., Nagpur, 2003)
10. What Does Justice Have to Do with Overcoming Poverty? open soceity foundation, (Jan 31, 2017, 19:43PM) https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/what-does-justice-have-do-overcoming-povert
11. Report of the committee on reform of criminal justice system, Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs-Vol.1, March 2003
12. Para 11.3ibid at 152. The Malimath committee on reform of criminal justice system: premises, politics, and implications for Human Rights.
13. (1964)1 Cri. LJ.16(S.C)
14. AIR 1985 SC 416
15. (1993) 2 S.C.J. 542
16. This is a broadly constructivist project, in line with the way Rawls describes constructivism, 1993, pp. 93-95. In embracing constructivism about rights, I mean in no way to reject normative realism as regards other aspects of morality. My claim is only that the space of rights is particularly well accounted for by appealing to the implications of working with this particular set of fundamental principle.

Written By: Shamir