Victimology in Indian Criminal Justice System: Rights and Remedies

Abstract:

This article with an emphasis on the rights and remedies accessible to victims of crime, explores the development of victimology within India’s criminal justice system. It charts the historical disregard for victims and the slow transition to victim-centered standards in the wake of global campaigns (such as the UN Declaration of 1985). Important legal changes (particularly CrPC §357A and associated programs) and significant rulings (like Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa) are examined. The conversation focuses on systemic issues (underreporting, procedural barriers, and ignorance), statistical patterns (such an increase in crimes against women), and the low adoption of compensation plans. The existing remedies (legal assistance, fast-track courts, compensation funds) and victim rights (access to justice, compensation, and protection of witnesses under new laws) are described. Finally, the article offers critical recommendations – from simplifying compensation procedures to strengthening witness protection and implementing the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita provisions – to make victim redressal more effective in India.

Historical Evolution of Victim Rights

Victimology – the study of victims’ rights and roles – emerged globally in the late 20th century. India’s colonial-era laws largely ignored victims, focusing on punishing offenders. The watershed United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims (1985) first articulated that victims have rights to “access to justice and fair treatment; restitution; compensation; and assistance”. This Declaration explicitly made the State responsible for compensating victims when offenders cannot. India gradually heeded these norms.

The Malimath Committee (2003) on criminal justice reforms recommended that victims have a “right to adequate compensation” and even an appellate remedy if it proved insufficient. It held that the State owes victims recompense regardless of the offender’s fate (apprehended or not). Similarly, the 226th Law Commission Report (2009) proposed creating Criminal Injuries Compensation Boards to ensure “compensatory justice” for victims. Even decades earlier, the 41st Law Commission (1969) had lamented that criminal procedure neglected victims, urging that compensation be treated as an enforceable remedy akin to a tort claim.

When victims were let down by authorities, Indian courts started giving compensation to uphold Article 21 (the right to life and dignity). In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993), for instance, the Supreme Court found the State accountable for a death that occurred while the victim was in custody and granted the victim’s mother ₹1.5 lakh. Such public-law remedies established that “compensation is a component of Article 21” and that sovereign immunity did not shield the State. Over time, the courts expanded this principle to other rights violations, grounding victims’ redress in the constitutional duty to protect life and liberty.

Statutory Rights and Compensation Schemes

Victim rights gained statutory form mainly through amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Originally, CrPC §545 (reproduced as §357 in the 1973 Code) gave courts discretion to order fines from offenders to be used for victims’ losses. The 1970 revision of CrPC removed the word “substantial” from the compensation provision, broadening courts’ power to award even nominal damages. Section 357(1)– (3) today allows courts to direct payment of fines to victims or order additional compensation in lieu of fine. The legislature foresaw a broad scope: §357 even explicitly covers “any person” suffering loss from the offence, including costs of prosecution (§357(1)(a)) and bona fide purchasers of stolen property (§357(1)(d)).

CrPC §2(wa) (added in 2009) now formally defines “victim” as anyone who has suffered loss or injury (economic, physical, psychological, or reputational) from a criminal act. This includes a victim’s legal heirs or guardians in cases of death or incapacity. Thus, victims of all categories of crime are theoretically entitled to be recognized in proceedings.

A major reform came with CrPC §357A (inserted by the 2008 amendment). Section 357A mandates that every State must enact a Victim Compensation Scheme for those injured by crime. The court may direct the State to pay additional compensation from this scheme when the offender’s fine (under §357) is inadequate, or even if the accused is acquitted or absconds. In essence, §357A recognizes compensation as a right of victims and makes it a state obligation to rehabilitate them. Notably, §357A reflects the State’s “failure to safeguard the public” and provides that “the State is held liable” to assist vulnerable victims. The State is responsible for funding and managing these funds, however victims must request for redress through the District/State Legal Services Authority.
The Supreme Court instructed the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to create comprehensive regulations. The Supreme Court requested that NALSA create model guidelines for victim compensation in cases involving sexual assault and associated offenses in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2012).

This led to the Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault…2018, which all States must implement. That scheme creates a dedicated Victim Compensation Fund and lists compensable categories (e.g. rape, acid attacks, grievous injury). Victims of human trafficking (though not expressly named) can claim under analogous heads like rape or forced labour injury.

Recent legislative changes have strengthened victim safeguards beyond the CrPC. The new criminal law, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (2023), which goes into force in July 2024, strengthens and unifies crimes against women and children into a single chapter. It increases penalties, establishes minimum requirements, and creates new offenses (such as trafficking (§144), child exploitation (§95), sexual intercourse by false promise (§69), organized kidnapping (§111), and purchasing children for prostitution (§99). BNS 2023’s Sections 75–79 provide that victims can also bring complaints under civil law, mirroring rules against sexual harassment in the workplace. Complementary legislation, such as the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (2023), outline survivor-centric methods for recording statements and provide statutory witness protection schemes (see Sec. 398). The evidence law (BSA 2023) now allows electronic communications (emails, voice mails, etc.) to be tendered to aid victims of harassment. These reforms signal that Indian law is finally acknowledging the victim’s perspective in investigating and prosecuting crime.

Judicial Recognition and Remedies

In implementing victim rights, the courts have been essential, frequently enhancing legislative plans. Indian courts have required relief even in acquittals, in addition to Nilabati Behera (custodial death compensation). In Ashwani Gupta v. Government of India (Delhi HC, 2022), for instance, the court stressed that interim compensation (under §357 CrPC) can be a useful remedy and that criminal punishments alone might not be enough for the families of victims. In the 1996 Supreme Court case Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty, the court mandated monthly maintenance for a rape victim while they were on trial. These cases demonstrate how the judiciary views restitution as an essential component of justice.

However, the limitations of pre-2008 law were also noted by courts. The Delhi High Court (in Karan v State NCT of Delhi, 2011) held that courts must mandatorily consider compensation under §357 in every conviction, and must record reasons for granting or refusing it. The Supreme Court in Suresh v State of Haryana (2014) warned that §357 has inherent limits (only post‑conviction, discretionary, depends on offender’s means) and is often too slow to benefit victims immediately. These concerns vindicated the need for a statutory scheme (§357A) and prompted courts to demand state‑level action (even suggesting prisoner wage deductions for victim funds).

Today, victims have clear statutory remedies: right to FIR copy, to be heard at bail/charge stages, fast-track courts for grievous cases, and legal aid via the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013 etc. Judicial directions (e.g. in Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v UOI, 1995) have also outlined procedural safeguards for rape victims (in-camera trials, support persons, timely justice). The new laws further mandate witness protection and special procedures for vulnerable victims (children, women) at every stage.

Current Challenges and Statistical Trends

Despite these reforms, victims in practice still face serious obstacles. Awareness of rights and schemes remains low, and implementation uneven. NCRB data show a rising burden of victimization: crimes against women rose from 405,326 in 2019 to 445,256 in 2022 (nearly one case every 51 minutes in 2022). Crimes against children and marginalized groups have similarly increased in the past decade. Yet demand for relief lags. An audit of trafficking survivors’ access (2018–21) found only 67 survivors applied for compensation nationwide, of whom 40 received awards. In 10 States/UTs there were no applications at all. Only 83.7% of the almost ₹265.77 crore allocated for victim compensation in 2018–21 was used. There is a significant regional differential as Delhi received ₹181.96 crore while Andhra Pradesh just received ₹0.0483 crore.
Despite the legal protections available under the criminal justice system, victims of crime in India frequently encounter severe procedural and systemic obstacles while trying to obtain justice and compensation.

Victim advocates consistently report that the process to apply for compensation is riddled with complex, multi-step formalities. The lack of standardized forms across states and districts adds confusion, making it difficult for survivors—many of whom come from marginalized communities—to understand or complete the process. A plethora of paperwork, such as First Information Reports (FIRs), medical certifications, identity documents, and occasionally court records, are often requested of applicants.
The fact that compensation money is frequently disbursed with considerable delays only serves to further complicate issues. Funds are frequently not released until after the criminal prosecution is over, sometimes only after a conviction and sometimes years later. Victims might have moved, died, or otherwise been inaccessible by then.

Survivors of trafficking, rape, and other forms of gender-based violence face additional challenges. Many suffer from long-term psychological damage, social exclusion, or stigma. For many, navigating a slow and bureaucratic system becomes an impossible undertaking. Even when the budget has already been approved, local authorities commonly use “shortage of finances” as an excuse for not paying compensation, according to NGOs like Sanjog that assist victims of human trafficking. A systemic failure to provide victim-centered justice is revealed by these gaps between policy and practice.

These figures underscore the implementation gap. While legislative and judicial developments have been progressive, the delivery of “victim-friendly” justice remains far from uniform or adequate. For example, CrPC §357A empowers victims, but it requires victims to assert their claims. Many are unaware of this right; others face intimidation or relocation after crime. Witness protection, though now enshrined in law, is still spottily executed. 

Analysis: Gaps, Remedies and Reform

Considering the above, India’s victimology framework is still in flux. Key issues include:

• Procedural complexity and delays: Victims frequently must go through drawn-out bureaucratic processes to receive compensation. There is no set period for award distribution. Although courts have occasionally awarded maintenance during trials, this is ad hoc and does not require interim relief. According to one expert, victims “cannot afford” the delays that “requirements such as medical reports can impose.” Deadlines and application procedures must be streamlined and harmonized.
• Inconsistent awareness and application: State schemes vary widely. Many State Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs) lack outreach to inform victims of their rights. The Sanjog audit found 14 States reported zero court recommendations under §357A – often due to authorities not linking victims to the scheme. Training of police, magistrates, and lawyers on victim rights (including new BNS/BNSS provisions) is uneven.
• Funding and policy gaps: Although it was established in 2015 to fill gaps, the Central Victim Compensation Fund (CVCF) does not have a specific source of funding. In budgets, disbursements are frequently regarded as residual. Experts recommend codifying statutory funds, such as fines, penalties, and government corpus. Furthermore, current programs prioritize financial compensation while ignoring rehabilitation (counselling, healthcare, and job assistance). Policy must incorporate a more comprehensive definition of “victim restitution,” which includes psychological assistance.
• Vulnerable groups: The current schemes focus on certain crimes (rape, homicide, acid attack, etc.), but marginalized victims (e.g. those of bonded labour, trafficking, religious violence) still fall through the cracks. Although the BNS 2023 criminalizes many such acts, administrative schemes must explicitly cover all categories of victims. For instance, persons injured in communal violence or as common accident victims may deserve statutory cover.
• Witness and Survivor Protection: Although witness protection and survivor-friendly procedures are now permitted by law under the BNSS and associated regulations, implementation is still in its infancy. Although fast-track trials and special courts are helpful, victims continue to report threats from the accused or their allies. It is nevertheless necessary to establish victim witness protection cells and provide officials with training.

Given these challenges, critical recommendations include:

1. Streamline Compensation Process: Establish explicit SOPs at the state level (as some states have started implementing bonded labour) so that victims can file claims with the fewest paperwork possible within 30 days of filing a formal complaint. After the offender is arrested, permit interim payments (such as a 50% advance). As requested by the Delhi High Court, require courts to document any compensation awards or justifications for denials in all their orders.
2. Raise Awareness and Legal Aid: Start educating people about victim rights at courts, hospitals, and police stations. During early hearings, require duty attorneys to notify victims of compensation plans. Outreach should formally incorporate victim survivor networks (like ILFAT) and civil society.
3. Ensure Adequate Funding: Establish a victim compensation fund (both federal and state) with secured income (such as a portion of central taxes or fines collected under the new legislation) in accordance with the constitution. It is appropriate to interpret the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita to permit the quick tapping of such money. All the Center’s CVCF and Nirbhaya money must be used for victim assistance.
4. Strengthen Witness Protection: Assign nodal agencies and expedite the establishment of State Witness Protection Schemes (BNSS §398). Offer victims and important witnesses real-time identity protection, relocation assistance, and counselling. Teach law enforcement and court personnel how to handle witnesses who are vulnerable, such as minorities, women, and children.
5. Inclusive Expansion of Victim Categories: Change compensation laws to include victims who are often ignored, such as those who have been the victims of trafficking, forced labour, community crimes, or violence against LGBTQ people. The regulations under §357A schemes should be changed to include a list of all the violations that the BNS now recognizes.
6. Victim Participation: Consider granting victims a formal role, such as the ability to voice their opinions at sentencing submissions, bail hearings, plea agreements, or parole hearings. This is consistent with the Declaration’s emphasis on equitable treatment and the concepts of restorative justice. For Nirbhaya instances, laws like as the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2018 took a step in that direction; more expansion is advised.

By addressing these gaps, India’s criminal justice system can move from a purely adversarial model to one that genuinely balances offenders’ rights with victims’ needs. Currently, victims are often treated as “mere witnesses” in practice, despite constitutional and international mandates to the contrary. A shift to a restorative justice approach – where state sanctions include repairing harm to victims – is imperative. The new codes (BNS/BNSS/BSA) provide an important legislative framework for this shift; their promise will be realized only if states enact robust schemes and courts vigilantly enforce victims’ entitlements.

Conclusion

Victimology in India has come a long way from the days of silent suffering. Progressive Supreme Court judgments and landmark amendments have, in theory, enshrined victims’ rights: to fair treatment, protection, and compensation. Yet the lived reality for most victims is still precarious. The latest crime data show victims in growing numbers (especially of gendered and child abuse), while state support remains fragmented. The Indian justice system must now ensure that rights on paper translate into relief on ground. This will require political will, resources, and a cultural shift.

We recommend that policymakers streamline compensation processes, secure funding, and integrate victims’ perspectives at every stage. The administration of the new criminal justice codes should be monitored to ensure that their victim‑centric ideals are fulfilled in practice. As international experience shows, where victims remain “forgotten stakeholders,” faith in justice erodes. India’s constitutional promise and global commitments demand better. Only by implementing the above reforms – strengthening compensation schemes, protecting witnesses, and empowering victims – can the system truly serve all parties to crime. In short, justice must be restorative as well as retributive.

Sources:

1. Manuscripts referred-

      Rajesh Mahajan, “Victim Compensation Laws in India,” Chambers & Partners, 22 April 2024.

Press Information Bureau (Ministry of WCD), “Crimes Against Women” (18 December 2024).

Sanjog India (Tafteesh Consortium), “Compensation to Victims of Crime: An Audit (2018–2021)” (2022).

Priyadarshini Muthuveeran, “Rights of Victims in the Indian Criminal Justice System,” IELRC (2004).

Nilabati Behera v State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746.

2. Websites referred-

National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) – https://nalsa.gov.in
(For official guidelines on victim compensation schemes in India)

Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India – https://mha.gov.in
(For policy documents and victim compensation data under Section 357A CrPC)

National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) – https://ncrb.gov.in
(For statistics on crimes and victim-related data)

Sanjog India (NGO Reports) – https://sanjogindia.org
(Reports on victim compensation issues among trafficking survivors)

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) – https://unodc.org
(For international victimology standards and comparative practices)

All data and references follow the OSCOLA citation style wherever applicable.