Published on: 11th January 2026
Authored By: Sheza Saleem
Rizvi Law College, Mumbai
ABSTRACT
Victimology in India has undergone a profound transformation over the last few decades, evolving from a historically offender-centric criminal justice model to one that increasingly recognizes the rights, dignity, and needs of victims. This shift has been gradual and continues to be incomplete, but the jurisprudential, legislative, and policy developments in recent years demonstrate an unmistakable movement toward a victim-centered approach. This essay examines the conceptual foundations of victimology, its emergence in the Indian legal framework, and the challenges that victims face while navigating the criminal justice system. It explores statutory rights and judicial innovations that have expanded victims’ access to fairness, compensation, participation, information, protection, and psychosocial support.
Drawing from landmark Supreme Court judgments, committees such as the Malimath Committee, statutory frameworks like the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) amendments, victim compensation schemes, and international standards including the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power (1985), this essay evaluates the state of victimology in contemporary India. It also highlights the gaps that persist structural, procedural, financial, and cultural and proposes reforms for developing a more humane, responsive, and restorative justice system. Ultimately, the essay argues that the future of criminal justice in India depends on rebalance: a system that neither undermines the rights of the accused nor marginalizes the voices and sufferings of victims, but ensures that justice becomes meaningful for all stakeholders.
Introduction
Victimology emerged globally in the mid-twentieth century when criminologists acknowledged that crime harms not only society in an abstract sense but concrete individuals who suffer physical, psychological, and financial injuries. Early criminology focused almost exclusively on the offender, leaving victims largely invisible. Victimology challenged this imbalance by placing victims at the centre of the discourse. In India, the shift from an offender-centric model to a more balanced approach has been slow, but the transformation is unmistakable.
For decades, Indian criminal procedure treated victims as mere witnesses. Their trauma, loss, and dignity remained peripheral concerns. Recent judicial pronouncements, legal reforms, and social awareness have started to correct this historical neglect.
Historical View Of Legislative Evolution
Victim protection was not an integral part of the colonial-era criminal procedure inherited from the British. The emphasis remained on safeguarding the accused through fair trial guarantees, an essential component of constitutional democracy. Over time, however, it became clear that justice must extend to victims as well. Reports such as the Malimath Committee (2003) emphasized that victims should not be ignored but should be central participants in the justice process. This recognition gradually transformed into statutory and jurisprudential developments that now shape India’s victimology framework.
Judicial Recognition of Victims’ Rights
The Supreme Court of India played a pivotal role in elevating victim rights. Early cases like Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab highlighted the injustice of ignoring victims’ needs. The Court emphasized that compensation should not be viewed as exceptional but as integral to justice.
In Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh, the Court urged the liberal use of Section 357 of the CrPC to award compensation. Although progress was initially slow, these judgments laid the foundation for the later statutory reforms that would significantly expand victims’ rights.
Statutory Framework and Legislative Reforms
Several amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure fundamentally altered the role of victims.
The insertion of Section 357A in 2009 mandated a victim compensation scheme in every state. This was the first time compensation became a statutory right rather than a judicial recommendation. These schemes provide financial support for medical treatment, rehabilitation, loss of income, and education needs of dependents.
The amendment to Section 372 in the same year granted victims the right to appeal against acquittals, inadequate sentences, or insufficient compensation. This transformation recognized victims as independent stakeholders in the justice process.
Laws such as the POCSO Act and the amendments to the Indian Penal Code following the Nirbhaya case further strengthened victims’ rights by introducing special courts and comprehensive protection mechanisms.
Victims’ Right to Participation in Criminal Proceedings
Traditionally, victims in India had almost no participatory role in criminal trials. Prosecution was entirely state-driven. Participation was limited to testifying.
Recent developments changed this landscape. The Supreme Court in Satya Pal Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh held that victims can challenge bail decisions. Courts increasingly permit victims to be heard during sentencing or parole hearings. This shift ensures that victims’ voices influence outcomes that directly affect their lives.
Victims’ participation now includes receiving case updates, presenting concerns regarding threats, and assisting prosecution through counsel in appropriate cases.
Victims’ Right to Protection and Witness Safeguards
Protection of victims, especially those vulnerable to intimidation or retaliation, is vital. Witness protection is a core component.
The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, approved by the Supreme Court, offers a national framework for ensuring safety through measures like identity change, relocation, police escorts, and in-camera proceedings. This is crucial in cases involving organized crime, gender violence, human trafficking, and caste atrocities.
Protection mechanisms help prevent secondary victimization, where victims suffer further trauma within the justice process itself.
Psychological Support and the Need for Trauma-Informed Procedures
Victims experience emotional and psychological distress that the traditional adversarial system often aggravates. Trauma-informed legal practices aim to reduce secondary victimization through sensitive evidence collection, less intrusive medical examinations, and child-friendly procedures.
Special courts under POCSO, video conferencing facilities, and bans on aggressive cross- examination in sexual offence cases help victims navigate the system with dignity. Yet nationwide implementation is uneven, and victim counselling infrastructure remains limited.
International Influences and India’s Compliance with Global Norms
International norms played a crucial role in shaping Indian victimology. The UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power sets global standards for compensation, participation, and fair treatment. Conventions like CEDAW pushed India to reform laws concerning gender-based violence. Global best practices have influenced the adoption of fast-track courts, forensic reforms, and victim-sensitive protocols. While India has incorporated several principles, full compliance requires stronger institutional support and funding.
Persistent Challenges in Victimology Implementation
In the midst of all the progressive reforms and the increased sensitivity of the courts, theactual practice of victimology in India still has to go through numerous structural, procedural, and socio-economic hurdles. First, the most apparent challenge is the disparity and unevenness of the victim compensation schemes among different states. Although Section 357A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) obliges all states to set up a victim compensation scheme, the compensation amount for the same crime varies hugely from one state to another. Victims in some states receive the compensation very quickly whereas in other states they have to wait for months or even years just for the first payment. Such differences generate an enormous feeling of unfairness and cause the public confidence in the legal system to decrease. Moreover, the victims are usually not aware of their legal rights at all. In case of victims especially from poor and uneducated backgrounds, the police and the
legal authorities never tell them about their right to compensation, protection or participation in the trial. When the victims are not legally literate and the state communication systems are not effective, the rights that are only on paper are rights that are not lived. On the other hand, the administrative issues, at times, make it harder for the victims to go through the process of claiming their rights and, thus, these issues act as a deterrent. Long forms, frequent visits to different government offices, continuous prove of identity, and indifferent officials develop that thing which is referred to as secondary victimization which is the harm that is inflicted not by the offender but through the justice system.
The legal aid that is charitably given under the Legal Services Authorities Act still falls short in many places. Legal aid, although mandated under the Legal Services Authorities Act, remains inadequate in many jurisdictions. Victims require legal guidance throughout the process not just to file claims but to understand court procedures, their rights during trial, and how to navigate complex legal terminology. Unfortunately, legal aid infrastructure is often overburdened, under-resourced, and unevenly accessible. Many victims, especially women, children, Dalits, Adivasis, migrants, and persons with disabilities, experience additional layers of disadvantage. Social stigma discourages reporting, fear of community backlash keeps victims silent, and economic vulnerability often prevents them from pursuing justice. For instance, in cases of sexual offences or caste-based violence, victims frequently face threats, ostracization, or pressure to withdraw complaints.
Moreover, the implementation of progressive laws such as the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act reveals a stark gap between legal rights and societal realities. While the Act includes provisions for protection, relief, and rehabilitation, victims often encounter police reluctance to register FIRs, delayed investigations, and intimidation from perpetrators who enjoy social or political influence. These challenges highlight a broader issue: the justice system tends to be more accessible to those with resources, knowledge, and influence, while vulnerable groups struggle to access even basic remedies. Until these structural and cultural barriers are addressed, the promise of victimology will remain only partially realized.
Balancing Rights of the Accused and Rights of the Victim; and the Role of Restorative Justice
In any democratic criminal justice system, safeguarding the rights of the accused is fundamental. Due process, presumption of innocence, and fair trial guarantees serve as essential protections against state power and wrongful convictions. Yet, historically, this emphasis often overshadowed the rights of victims. The challenge lies in achieving a balance where neither side is ignored. Protecting the accused should never result in sidelining victims or minimizing their suffering. A truly just system ensures that the accused receives every constitutional safeguard while the victim is treated with dignity, informed about proceedings, and allowed meaningful participation.
The misconception that enhancing victims’ rights undermines the rights of the accused must be addressed. Both sets of rights can coexist harmoniously. For example, allowing victims to be heard at bail, sentencing, or parole hearings does not compromise the accused’s right to a fair trial. Rather, it enriches the justice process by ensuring that decisions reflect the full impact of crime, not just its legal dimensions. Similarly, providing victims the right to appeal against acquittals or inadequate sentences recognizes their legitimate interests without diminishing legal protections afforded to defendants.
Restorative justice offers an additional dimension to this balancing exercise. Unlike the traditional adversarial model, which focuses on punishment and legal guilt, restorative justice emphasizes healing, accountability, and dialogue. Through structured interactions—such as mediated meetings between offenders and victims restorative justice seeks to repair harm and promote understanding. It encourages offenders to acknowledge the consequences of their actions and gives victims an opportunity to express their experiences and seek closure.
However, restorative justice is not a panacea, nor is it suitable for all types of crimes. Serious offences such as rape, murder, or organized crime require strict criminal prosecution. But in cases involving juveniles, community disputes, minor property offences, or conflicts arising from socio-economic tensions, restorative justice can lead to outcomes that are more satisfying for victims and more rehabilitative for offenders. Several countries have adopted restorative justice programs within their criminal justice systems, and India has gradually begun to explore these mechanisms as supplements, not substitutes, for formal justice. Properly implemented, restorative justice can humanize the system, reduce recidivism, relieve court burdens, and provide emotional resolution that traditional judgments often cannot.
Role of Technology, Pathways Toward a Victim-Centered System, and the Future of Victimology
Technology holds significant promise to strengthen victim rights, simplify processes and improve transparency. For example, digital platforms could reduce the burden of unnecessarily complicated processes when applying for compensation, tracking a case’s progress, or receiving updates on next court dates. Similarly, online FIRs, virtual hearings, or video-recorded testimonies can reduce the necessity of multiple physical appearances in the courtroom, which are traumatic events for victims, to relay their experiences. Additionally, remotely providing testimonial evidence reduces stress and fear for victims in sensitive cases like sexual offences, trafficking, or child abuse, as they do not have to face the accused directly. In addition, technology can create, improve, and streamline functioning between police, prosecutors, legal aid services, and compensation authorities and ensure better coordination. Broader systems, such as a nationwide integrated victim database, may eliminate duplication, institute speed and timeliness, and improve accountability.
Notably, however, any technology-based solution must support digital literacy and access. Victims in rural or marginalized communities may not have smartphones, internet service, or simply knowledge of available digital platforms. Without technology – based solutions, the implementation of digitalization may unwittingly widen the gap between privileged and vulnerable victims. Consequently, it is imperative that the introduction of technology be backed by frameworks of ground support, such as victim assistance centers, help desks in courts, and trained liaison officers who can assist victims and explain the criminal justice process at each stage.
While moving towards a victim-centered criminal justice system is critical, it is not limited to structural reforms. It also also requires cultural transformation. Moving toward a victim- centered criminal justice system requires structural reforms and cultural changes. Establishing victim liaison officers or victim advocates within police stations and courts can bridge the communication gap between victims and justice institutions. Dedicated psychological support units are essential for addressing trauma and improving victims’ mental well-being. Specialized prosecutors for crimes such as domestic violence, human trafficking, and sexual offences would ensure focused attention. Additionally, judicial and police training programs in victim sensitivity must be institutionalized to combat intrusive questioning, dismissive attitudes, and victim-blaming tendencies that tarnish the justice experience.
Adequate funding and political commitment are indispensable. Victim rehabilitation often requires long-term support medical treatment, counseling, financial assistance, education for children, and employment opportunities. These cannot be one-time gestures. A strong victim- centered system recognizes that justice extends beyond conviction or punishment; it involves restoring the victim’s dignity, stability, and sense of security.
Conclusion
To sum up, the future of victimology, in so far as it is practiced, is to create a more just, empathetic and effective justice system. Victims’ rights have been strengthened, as through legislative reform, judicial activism, education on international standards, and the modern- day workforce combine to strengthen and enhance a victim’s rights and remedies. There continues to be much work to be done to see these rights , accessible, and given meaningful, lived effect. A justice system that values and respects the victim and accused in narratives to instances and healing alongside punishment, and develops as society calls, will strengthen and add to justice pillars. Victims should not have to remain silenced in an unkind state and should enter the criminal justice process as active participants in which they have a voice in the justice system. Only then, will the aspirations of victimology be turned into lived experience.
