Victim Compensation and Victimology in India
Introduction
The criminal justice system in society, has evolved as a result of a shift from private vengeance, to justice rendered by the state. The shift in focus removes the victims from the main picture, and makes them a secondary player. Soon, all the systems adjusted around the accused, their rights and punishments, and away from the rights and losses of victims. Losses suffered by them were removed from consideration. A dangerous assumption that the victims’ interests were identical to the state’s interests came about. Thus, it becomes the responsibility of the state to bring them back into focus, and make justice more victim centric. In a society where the victims are not allowed to take justice into their own hands, State should be held liable for failing to protect the victims’ rights.
Definition of Victim Under UN Declaration
A victim under the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crimes and Abuse of Power [1] was defined as “persons who, individually or collectively, have suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omissions that are in violation of criminal laws operative within Member States, including those laws proscribing criminal abuse of power.”[2] The declaration was instrumental in shifting the focus of the criminal justice system from the perpetrator to the victim, who has suffered a loss. As can be seen, the declaration provided for a broad definition of the word, bringing into its ambit, the dependents of the direct victim, and anyone who suffered a loss trying to intervene, or to stop the crime. [3]
Victim Compensation Under Indian Law
In India, the compensation of victims of crime is guaranteed under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,[4] which mandates compensation to be paid by the convicted person, as a result of a crime, from the fine imposed on him/her. This section corresponds to the Section 395 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. [5] The provision makes it abundantly clear that such compensation could be and was to be awarded only when the convict is sentenced to a substantial amount of fine. Moreover, a victim is defined as “a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission of the accused person and includes the guardian or legal heir of such victim” in section 2(y) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023.[6] The definition in itself narrowed down the scope by excluding the dependents of the direct victim.
Section 396 and Victim Compensation
A later addition to the code in 2009, corresponding to Section 396 of the BNSS, brought much relief to the ambit of victimology in India.[7]
“Every State Government in co-ordination with the Central Government shall prepare a scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation to the victim or his dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation.” Thus, the two impediments, of the fine amount not being enough for compensation of the victim, and the dependents not being included, were removed by the addition of this provision.
Supreme Court on Victim Compensation
In the case of Hari Kishan Singh & State of Haryana vs. Sukhbir Singh, the Supreme Court granted compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the victim and instructed subordinate criminal courts to use their authority to award compensation more generously, ensuring that victims do not need to resort to civil courts for compensation.[8]
Constitutional Right to Victim Compensation
The constitutional foundations of victim compensation have a broader impact to victimology. The State within the limits of its economic strength shall make effective provision for public assistance in the event of disablement and other cases of undeserved want, as directed in Article 41 of the Constitution.[9] This is a Directive Principle which cannot be enforced by itself, but it has been interpreted as a part of fundamental rights by the Supreme Court.[10]
Articles 14, 21, 32 and 226
Article 21 assures the right to live with dignity, Article 14 bars arbitrary and unequal treatment, and Articles 32 and 226 enable a person whose fundamental rights are violated by the State to approach the Supreme Court or the High Courts directly.[11] It is with the import of these vested rights, that the courts have given monetary compensation to victims of crime as a remedy. The Constitution guarantees the victim dignity and equal protection; however, it does not provide for compensation as an express and enforceable right.
Constitutional Remedies and Victim Compensation
In Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty,[12] the Court found that a crime like rape is a violation of the victim’s right under Article 21, and while the suit was still pending, interim compensation could be awarded. In Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India,[13] the court directed the provision of legal assistance to the victims and also ordered the establishment of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, the awards of which were to be made irrespective of whether the offender was convicted or not.
Need for Comprehensive Victim Compensation Legislation
Even in view of these decisions, India has yet to enact a comprehensive legislation on victim compensation, leaving the grant of compensation to the discretion of courts. The design of schemes was left to individual States and this has led to a wide variation. In Suresh v. State of Haryana,[14] the Supreme Court remarked that even five years after the enactment of the section, compensation awards were far from becoming common practice, interim compensation was rarely awarded and, several States were yet to even notify a scheme.
Disparity Between States
The most discernable fault is perhaps the disparity between the compensation schemes of different states. This disparity could be attributed to the capacity of the states to allocate funds towards victim compensation, and its prioritization of victim welfare. The delay and disparities have resulted in deplorable circumstances such as a victim of an acid attack, losing his eyesight and being left without interim compensation for over six months following the incident, [15] and a mother and her minor son, not receiving compensation for over 9 years.[16] In both the cases, the High Court had to intervene and make the award.
Variation in State Compensation Schemes
According to a 2025 comparison between Nagaland and Tamil Nadu showed that while the Nagaland scheme provided for no compensation to victims of acid attack, the scheme in force in Tamil Nadu provided for up to 3.5 lakhs in compensation to the victims. [17] While it goes up to 8 lakhs in Sikkim, the figure is at 5 lakhs in Punjab. Despite the model scheme of NALSA being drafted before the Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, the Court had noted that the 24 States and Union Territories had yet to file the affidavits it had requested.[18]
Article 14 and Victim Compensation
It is essential to note that this disparity and delay in the award of compensation to the victims of crime that are quantified on the same level, goes against the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14.
Conclusion
The victim’s right, as such, is still qualified, and would only be secured if the State’s finances and administrative will were to provide them with it, but the Law Commission’s 154th Report and the Malimath Committee had recommended a greater degree of protection to be accorded to the victim.[19]
Victimology in India remains at an incomplete and unfinished stage. While the courts have provided a constitutional basis from which to protect victims, the scheme is still incomplete, under-resourced and throwaway.[20]
Proposed Reforms for Victim Compensation
The only way to further victimology in India, is a focused central legislation with a fixed lower limit to compensation for the victims and their dependents, with a prescribed range to the compensation, provided additional amount can be awarded in exceptional cases at the discretion of a prescribed authority. The legislation must also categorically make interim compensation mandatory. Further, with the compensation being left to the courts, it has become a common occurrence that the award by the district court proves to be insufficient and delayed. Thus, the task must be pulled from already overburdened district courts to specialized tribunals, with the police and the magistrate mandated to direct the victim and their dependents to the tribunal on the occurrence of a crime. Until the victims receive adequate justice, the fact that this is a “victim-centric” system of justice will still only exist on paper.
References
- UNGA Res 40/34 (29 November 1985) UN Doc A/RES/40/34, annex, Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power.
- Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, UNGA Res 40/34 (29 November 1985) https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/declaration-basic-principles-justice-victims-crime-and-abuse accessed 29 September 2026.
- Dipa Dube, ‘Victim Compensation Schemes in India: An Analysis’ (2018) 13 International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences 339.
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974), s. 357.
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023), s. 395.
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, s. 2(1)(y); cf. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s. 2(wa).
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s. 357A, inserted by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (Act 5 of 2009) with effect from 31 December 2009; now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, s. 396.
- Hari Kishan v. Sukhbir Singh, (1988) 4 SCC 551.
- Constitution of India 1950, art 41.
- Shalini Goel and Prem Chandra, ‘Right to Compensation under Constitutional Scheme in India’ (2025) 2(4) International Journal of Science Research and Technology 328.
- Constitution of India, arts. 14, 21, 32, 41 and 226.
- Bodhisattwa Gautam v Subhra Chakraborty (1996) 1 SCC 490.
- Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v Union of India (1995) 1 SCC 14.
- Suresh v State of Haryana (2015) 2 SCC 227.
- Rajesh Thoppil v District Legal Services Authority Kannur 2025: KER: 1204 (Ker HC).
- Rincy v State of Kerala 2025: KER:1625 (Ker HC).
- Ipsita Ojal and Varinder Kaur, ‘Towards Equal Justice: Addressing the Disparity in Victim Compensation across Indian States’ (2025) 11 Social Sciences & Humanities Open 101436.
- Nipun Saxena v Union of India WP (C) No 565 of 2012 (SC, 15 February 2018 and 11 May 2018); National Legal Services Authority, Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/other Crimes (2018).
- Law Commission of India, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Law Com No 154, 1996); Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, Report (Ministry of Home Affairs 2003).
- Rupesh Kumar, ‘Compensation to Victim under the Indian Constitution and Other Indian Laws’ (2024) 30(1) Educational Administration: Theory and Practice 4004.
