kin have legitimate expectation that the State will punish the guilty and compensate the victim. There are systemic or other failures responsible for crime remaining unpunished which need to be addressed by improvement in quality and integrity of those who deal with investigation and prosecution, apart from improvement of infrastructure but punishment of guilty is not the only step in providing justice to victim. Victim expects a mechanism for rehabilitative measures, including monetary compensation. Such compensation has been directed to be paid in public law remedy with reference to Article 21. In numerous cases, to do justice to the victims, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed payment of monetary compensation as well as rehabilitative settlement where State or other authorities failed to protect the life and liberty of victims. For example, Kewal Pati v. State of U.P. (1995) 3 SCC 600 (death of prisoner by co-prisoner), Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. State of Bihar , (1991) 3 SCC 482 (failure to provide timely medical aid by jail authorities, Chairman, Rly. Board v. Chandrima Das , (2000) 2 SCC 465 (rape of Bangladeshi national by Railway staff), Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa , (1993) 2 SCC 746 (Custodial death), Khatri (I) v. State of Bihar (1981) 1 SCC 623 (prisoners' blinding by jail staff), Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India , (1989) 1 SCC 674 (gas leak victims).