Published on: 11th January 2026
Authored by: Maansi Gupta
St Joseph's College of law
Abstract
The Indian criminal justice system has historically prioritized the punishment of offenders, often marginalizing victims and their needs. However, the emergence of victimology as an academic and legal discipline has prompted a paradigm shift toward recognizing victims as
central stakeholders in the justice process. This research article examines the evolution of victim rights in India, analyzes the legal framework providing remedies to crime victims, and critically evaluates the implementation challenges. Through an examination of constitutional provisions, legislative reforms, judicial pronouncements, and recent statutory developments including the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, this article demonstrates that while India has made significant progress in victim-centric reforms, substantial gaps remain in awareness, infrastructure, and timely delivery of justice.
Introduction
Victimology, the scientific study of victims of crime, emerged as a distinct field of criminology in the mid-twentieth century. The term was first coined by Benjamin Mendelsohn, often referred to as the father of victimology. Traditional criminal justice systems worldwide, including India’s, have long focused on the relationship between the state and the offender, treating crime primarily as a violation against society rather than against individual victims. This approach relegated victims to the role of mere witnesses, with their trauma, rights, and rehabilitation needs often overlooked.
The Indian criminal justice system’s transformation from an offender-centric to a victim centric approach represents a fundamental evolution in legal philosophy. From the retributive justice model that emphasized revenge, the system has gradually moved toward reformative and restorative justice models that acknowledge the victim’s suffering and prioritize their rehabilitation. This shift has been catalyzed by legislative reforms, proactive judicial intervention, and growing awareness about victims’ rights as an integral component of human rights.
Historical Evolution of Victimology in India
The concept of victim rights in India has evolved through several distinct phases. In the pre independence era, criminal law focused almost exclusively on punishing offenders, with victims having no formal standing in criminal proceedings beyond providing testimony. The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) of 1973 initially provided limited provisions for victim compensation, primarily through Section 357, which allowed courts to order compensation from fines collected from convicted offenders.
The watershed moment for victimology in India came with the 154th Law Commission Report of 1996, which devoted an entire chapter to victimology and recommended a
comprehensive victim-centric approach. This report emphasized the need for compensation, rehabilitation, and legal representation for victims. Based on these recommendations, the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act of 2008 introduced Section 357A, which mandated state governments to establish victim compensation schemes, marking the first time that state responsibility for victim welfare was formally recognized.
The establishment of the Indian Society of Victimology (ISV) in 1992 provided an institutional platform for advocating victims’ rights. The ISV drafted a Victim Assistance Bill in 1996, which, though not enacted into law, influenced subsequent policy reforms. Various Law Commission reports, including the 226th Report of 2009, further strengthened the case for comprehensive victim protection legislation and recommended the creation of Criminal Injuries Compensation Boards at central, state, and district levels.
Constitutional Framework for Victim Rights
The Indian Constitution provides the foundational framework for protecting victim rights, though these provisions are not explicitly labeled as such. Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, has been interpreted expansively by the judiciary to include victims’ rights to dignity, rehabilitation, and compensation. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to life encompasses the right to live with dignity, which extends to crime victims whose fundamental rights have been violated.
Article 14, which ensures equality before the law and equal protection of laws, has been invoked to argue that victims deserve equal treatment and attention within the criminal justice system, not just accused persons. Article 39A, part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, mandates the state to provide free legal aid to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. This provision has been extended to cover legal assistance for victims.
The Supreme Court has developed the doctrine of public law compensation, holding that when fundamental rights are violated by state action or inaction, victims are entitled to monetary compensation as a constitutional remedy. Landmark cases such as Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa established that compensation for custodial deaths and fundamental rights violations is a constitutional obligation, enforceable under Article 32 and Article 226.
Legislative Framework: Rights and Remedies
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The CrPC has been progressively amended to incorporate victim-friendly provisions. Section 357 allows courts to order compensation to victims from fines imposed on convicted offenders. However, this provision had inherent limitations, as compensation was contingent upon conviction and the offender’s ability to pay fines.
The introduction of Section 357A through the 2008 amendment transformed the victim compensation landscape. This provision requires every state government, in coordination with the central government, to prepare schemes for providing compensation to victims or their dependents who have suffered loss or injury and require rehabilitation. Significantly,
Section 357A enables compensation even when the accused is acquitted, discharged, or cannot be identified, thereby divorcing victim relief from offender culpability.
Section 357B, inserted by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 2013, clarifies that state compensation under Section 357A is in addition to any fine paid by the offender under specific provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Section 357C mandates that all hospitals, public or private, must immediately provide free first-aid and medical treatment to victims of specific offenses, including rape, sexual assault, and acid attacks, and must inform the police of such incidents.
Section 2(wa) of the CrPC defines a “victim” as a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused has been charged, and includes their guardians or legal heirs. Section 24(8) allows victims to appoint advocates to assist the public prosecutor, though with limited participatory rights.
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023
The BNSS, which came into effect on July 1, 2024, as a replacement for the CrPC, represents the most comprehensive victim-centric reform in Indian criminal procedure. Section 396 of the BNSS strengthens the victim compensation framework by mandating state compensation schemes with strict timelines—often two months—for inquiries and awards. It explicitly provides for interim compensation before trial conclusion for serious crimes including rape, acid attacks, and murder.
Section 397 of the BNSS mandates free and immediate medical care for victims of sexual offenses, requiring both public and private hospitals to provide first-aid or medical treatment without delay and report incidents to police. The BNSS also prescribes specific timelines for various procedures: medical practitioners examining rape victims must submit reports within seven days, courts must inform victims of investigation progress within ninety days, and judgments must be delivered within thirty days of completing arguments.
These provisions reflect a significant shift toward ensuring that victims receive timely justice, medical care, and financial support, regardless of the case’s outcome. The BNSS also maintains provisions for victim anonymity in sensitive cases and strengthens witness protection measures.
Other Relevant Legislation
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, provides comprehensive protection to children from sexual abuse and exploitation. The Act establishes child-friendly procedures for recording statements, conducting trials, and ensuring rehabilitation. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, address specific forms of victimization with remedies including protection orders, residence orders, and compensation.
The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, passed in response to the Nirbhaya case, introduced stricter punishments for sexual offenses and strengthened victim protection
measures, including provisions for recording victim statements through audio-video means and in-camera trials.
Judicial Contributions to Victim Rights
The Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, has played a transformative role in developing victim jurisprudence through progressive interpretations and guidelines. In the landmark case of Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India (1995), the Supreme Court laid down comprehensive guidelines for protecting rape victims. The Court directed that victims must be informed of their right to legal representation, their anonymity must be maintained during trials, and they should receive compensation. The judgment recommended establishing Criminal Injuries Compensation Boards and emphasized that rape trials often constitute secondary victimization.
In Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty (1995), the Supreme Court held that courts have the power to award interim compensation to rape victims even before trial conclusion, ordering monthly maintenance for victims during case pendency. The Court recognized that civil proceedings for damages are lengthy and complex, making interim relief essential for victim rehabilitation.
The case of Suresh and Anr. v. State of Haryana highlighted the limitations of Section 357 and emphasized the need for state-funded compensation schemes independent of offender conviction. In Palaniappa Gounder v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Madras High Court awarded victim compensation, setting a precedent for judicial activism in protecting victim interests.
More recently, in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court directed the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to frame a comprehensive compensation scheme for victims of sexual offenses, including those covered under the POCSO Act. The Court noted significant disparities in state compensation schemes and called for uniformity in compensation standards.
Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, in Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, famously observed that Indian jurisprudence suffers from the weakness that victims and their distress do not attract sufficient legal attention, highlighting the need for restitutive and compensatory mechanisms. These judicial pronouncements have progressively shaped a victim-sensitive justice system, though implementation challenges persist.
Victim Compensation Schemes
Following the mandate of Section 357A, all Indian states and union territories have notified victim compensation schemes, though with considerable variation in coverage, quantum, and procedures. The Central Government established the Central Victim Compensation Fund (CVCF) in 2015, with a corpus fund to support and supplement state schemes, particularly for serious crimes including rape, acid attacks, human trafficking, and cross-border firing injuries.
State Legal Services Authorities (SLSA) and District Legal Services Authorities (DLSA) are responsible for deciding compensation quantum and disbursing funds. Victims or their dependents can apply for compensation regardless of whether the offender is convicted,
acquitted, or even identified. The schemes typically cover medical expenses, rehabilitation costs, loss of earnings, and psychological counseling.
However, significant challenges affect scheme implementation. There is substantial disparity across states in compensation amounts for similar offenses. Some states offer higher compensation for certain crimes while others lag behind. Lack of awareness among victims about their entitlement to compensation remains a critical barrier, particularly in rural areas. Procedural hurdles, including bureaucratic red tape and delayed inquiries, often frustrate victims seeking relief. Many states have not established dedicated victim support units, and coordination between police, legal services authorities, and medical institutions remains inadequate.
Recent reforms in states like Delhi, Kerala, and Meghalaya have introduced digital portals enabling online applications and tracking of compensation claims, reducing bureaucratic delays and improving transparency. The Haryana Victim Compensation Scheme, 2020, provides for expedited compensation in acid attack cases, with initial payments within fifteen days of notification.
Support Services and Rehabilitation
Beyond compensation, comprehensive victim assistance requires medical care, psychological counseling, legal aid, and social support. The Nirbhaya Fund, established by the Government of India following the 2012 Delhi gang rape case, supports initiatives for the safety, security, and dignity of women. One Nirbhaya Centre (OSC) initiative has established one-stop centers
across India providing integrated support—including police assistance, medical aid, legal counseling, and psychological support—under one roof, minimizing re-traumatization.
However, significant gaps persist in rehabilitation infrastructure. There is a shortage of trained counselors and mental health professionals specializing in trauma care. Many victims, particularly in rural areas, lack access to quality medical facilities and legal services. Social stigma continues to affect victims of sexual offenses, often leading to secondary victimization by family and community.
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act mandates child-friendly procedures, special educators, and support persons during trials, recognizing children’s unique vulnerability. Similarly, provisions for recording statements of sexual assault survivors through video conferencing aim to reduce courtroom trauma.
Challenges and Implementation Gaps
Despite progressive legislation and judicial activism, several challenges impede effective realization of victim rights. Awareness deficit remains the most significant obstacle—many victims, especially in rural areas, are unaware of their legal entitlements. The criminal justice system’s complexity and intimidating nature deter many from seeking compensation or participating meaningfully in proceedings.
Police attitudes and conduct critically impact victims’ experiences. Unfortunately, many police officers lack training in victimology and sensitive handling of victims. Delayed registration of First Information Reports (FIRs), insensitive questioning, and failure to inform
victims about their rights constitute common problems. The requirement under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act that confessions to police officers are inadmissible creates additional procedural complications.
Resource constraints affect scheme implementation. Many District Legal Services Authorities lack adequate staff, infrastructure, and funds to process compensation claims efficiently. Inquiries mandated to be completed within two months often extend far longer, delaying relief to victims. Coordination between multiple agencies—police, hospitals, legal services authorities, and courts—remains weak in many jurisdictions.
There is no uniformity in categorizing offenses eligible for compensation or in determining quantum across states. Some states provide substantially higher compensation for identical offenses compared to others, creating inequities. The absence of comprehensive national legislation specifically addressing victim rights, as exists in countries like the United States, Canada, and Australia, limits the coherence and effectiveness of India’s victim assistance framework.
Cultural and societal barriers compound legal challenges. Victims of sexual offenses face intense social stigma, often leading to ostracization. Patriarchal attitudes and victim-blaming persist in many communities, discouraging reporting and help-seeking. Economic dependence, particularly among women and children, makes it difficult to leave abusive situations or pursue justice.
Conclusion and Recommendations
India has made remarkable progress in recognizing and protecting victim rights over the past three decades. From virtually no legal standing beyond being witnesses, victims now have constitutional and statutory rights to compensation, medical care, legal representation, and dignified treatment. The evolution from Section 357 of the CrPC to Section 357A, and now to Sections 396-397 of the BNSS, demonstrates legislative commitment to victim welfare.
However, translating legal provisions into lived reality requires sustained effort. Comprehensive awareness campaigns, particularly in vernacular languages and through grassroots organizations, are essential to inform victims about their entitlements. Legal literacy programs should be integrated into school curricula and community development initiatives.
Capacity building for all criminal justice actors—police officers, prosecutors, judges, and medical professionals—must prioritize victim-sensitive approaches and trauma-informed care. Specialized training programs on victimology should be mandatory for law enforcement personnel. Police stations should maintain updated lists of victim support services and compensation procedures.
States must strengthen victim support infrastructure by establishing dedicated victim assistance units at district levels, adequately staffed and resourced. Digital platforms for filing and tracking compensation claims should be rolled out nationwide, ensuring accessibility even in remote areas. Timelines mandated in the BNSS must be strictly enforced through monitoring mechanisms and accountability frameworks.
Achieving uniformity in compensation schemes across states, guided by NALSA’s model scheme, would address current disparities and ensure equitable treatment. Compensation amounts should be periodically revised to account for inflation and actual rehabilitation costs. Expedited procedures for interim relief in serious crimes would address immediate victim needs pending final adjudication.
Perhaps most critically, societal attitudes toward victims must evolve. Public awareness campaigns challenging victim-blaming, reducing stigma around sexual offenses, and promoting empathy for victim trauma are essential. Community-based support systems, including survivor networks and counseling services, can provide crucial assistance beyond formal legal mechanisms.
The enactment of comprehensive national legislation on victim rights, incorporating international best practices from the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, would provide a unified framework superseding fragmented state schemes. Such legislation should cover all categories of victims, prescribe minimum standards for compensation and support services, mandate victim participation rights throughout the criminal process, and establish robust accountability mechanisms.
India’s journey toward a truly victim-centric criminal justice system is ongoing. The legal architecture is largely in place; the challenge lies in implementation, awareness, and cultural transformation. Only through concerted efforts by the legislature, judiciary, executive, and civil society can the promise of justice extend beyond punishment of offenders to meaningful healing and restoration for those who have suffered harm. Victimology’s central insight—that justice must attend to victim needs with the same vigor applied to determining offender culpability—must guide future reforms. The measure of a civilized society lies not only in how it punishes wrongdoers but in how it treats those wronged.
References
- Sharma, A. (2024). Concept of Victimology in Indian Criminal Justice Administration. Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law, Vol. IV(I). Retrieved from https://ijirl.com/
- Law Commission of India. (1996). 154th Report on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Government of India.
- Law Commission of India. (1969). 41st Report on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Government of India.
- Law Commission of India. (2009). 226th Report on Acid Attacks and Victim Compensation. Government of India.
- Criminal Law (Amendment) Act. (2013). Act No. 13 of 2013. Government of India. 6. Code of Criminal Procedure. (1973). Act No. 2 of 1974. Government of India. 7. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. (2023). Act No. 45 of 2023. Government of India.
- Ministry of Home Affairs. (2015). Central Victim Compensation Fund Scheme. Government of India.
- Chockalingam, K. (2010). Measures for Crime Victims in the Indian Criminal Justice System. UNAFEI Resource Material Series, No. 81, pp. 97-110.
- Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India. (1995). AIR 1995 SC 1653. Supreme Court of India.
- Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty. (1996). 1996 SCC (1) 490. Supreme Court of India.
- Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa. (1993). AIR 1993 SC 1960. Supreme Court of India.
- Suresh and Anr. v. State of Haryana. (2015). AIR 2015 SC 146. Supreme Court of India.
- Palaniappa Gounder v. State of Tamil Nadu. (1997). AIR 1997 Mad 205. Madras High Court.
- Nipun Saxena v. Union of India and Others. (2018). Writ Petition No. 565 of 2012. Supreme Court of India.
- Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab. (1979). AIR 1979 SC 1149. Supreme Court of India. 17. Ashwani Gupta v. Government of India. (2016). 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6024. Delhi High Court.
- Mitra, P. (2025). Victimology in Indian Criminal Justice System: Rights and Remedies. The Legal Quorum. Retrieved from https://thelegalquorum.com/ 19. United Nations General Assembly. (1985). Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power. UN Document A/RES/40/34. 20. Mohan, V. (2017). Revisiting Victim Compensation in India. Manupatra Journal of Criminal Justice. Retrieved from http://docs.manupatra.in/
- National Crime Records Bureau. (2019). Crime in India Report. Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.
- Standing Committee on Home Affairs. (2023). Report No. 247 on the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Parliament of India.
- National Legal Services Authority. (2018). Model Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes. Government of India. 24. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. (2012). Act No. 32 of 2012. Government of India.
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. (2005). Act No. 43 of 2005. Government of India.
