• by MK

Victim compensation under Criminal Laws: Punishment to Restoration

Introduction

The criminal justice system in India has historically been centred on the offender, with the primary objective of determining guilt and imposing punishment. For a long time, victims of crime remained marginal to this process, often reduced to the role of witnesses with little consideration given to their suffering or rehabilitation. Over time, however, Indian criminal jurisprudence has undergone a perceptible shift towards recognising victims as rights-bearing participants in the justice system. Victim compensation has emerged as a crucial mechanism through which the law seeks to address the harm suffered by victims and restore their dignity.

Concept and Scope of Victim Compensation

Victim compensation refers to monetary relief granted to a person who has suffered loss or injury as a consequence of a criminal offence. The objective of such compensation is not punitive but restorative, aiming to provide financial assistance for medical expenses, loss of income, rehabilitation, and emotional recovery. Unlike civil damages, victim compensation under criminal law does not require the victim to initiate separate proceedings or establish liability beyond the criminal process. This framework is rooted in the constitutional guarantee of life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which has been judicially interpreted to encompass the right to rehabilitation and meaningful access to justice.

Statutory Framework Under the Code of Criminal Procedure

The statutory basis for victim compensation was first articulated under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 357(1) empowered criminal courts to direct that the whole or any part of the fine imposed upon conviction be paid to the victim as compensation for the injury caused by the offence. Section 357(3) further enabled courts to award compensation even in cases where no fine was imposed, thereby delinking compensation from the quantum of punishment. Despite these provisions, the discretionary nature of Section 357 resulted in inconsistent application and limited relief for victims.

Introduction of Section 357A CrPC and State Responsibility

In response to these shortcomings, Section 357A was inserted into the CrPC in 2009, marking a significant shift towards state-funded victim compensation. This provision mandated every State Government to formulate a Victim Compensation Scheme for providing financial assistance to victims or their dependents who have suffered loss or injury and require rehabilitation. Importantly, Section 357A extended compensation to cases where the offender was not traced or where the accused was acquitted. It also allowed victims to apply directly to the District or State Legal Services Authority and mandated immediate medical aid for victims of serious offences.

Judicial Expansion of Victim Compensation Jurisprudence

The Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in strengthening the implementation of victim compensation provisions. In Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra (2013), the Court held that the power to award compensation under Section 357(3) is mandatory in nature and that courts must apply their mind to this aspect in every criminal case. The Court clarified that failure to consider compensation amounts to a dereliction of judicial duty. This judgment significantly elevated victim compensation from a discretionary relief to an essential component of criminal adjudication.

Compensation as a Constitutional Obligation

The constitutional dimensions of victim compensation were further elaborated in Suresh v. State of Haryana (2014), where the Supreme Court held that compensation is not an act of charity but a legal entitlement flowing from Articles 21 and 38 of the Constitution. The Court emphasised that delayed or inadequate compensation defeats the purpose of rehabilitation and undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system. This case firmly established that victim compensation is a substantive right rather than a benevolent concession.

Special Protection for Victims of Heinous Offences

In cases involving sexual violence and acid attacks, courts have adopted a victim-centric approach to compensation. In Laxmi v. Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court directed all States to provide a minimum compensation of ₹3 lakh to acid attack victims along with free medical treatment. Similarly, in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2018), the Court directed the National Legal Services Authority to formulate a uniform compensation scheme for victims of sexual offences, recognising the need for timely and adequate financial support as part of holistic justice.

Victim Compensation Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

With the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the framework of victim compensation has been retained and strengthened under Section 396. This provision mandates every State Government to prepare a Victim Compensation Scheme for providing compensation to victims or their dependents who have suffered loss or injury and require rehabilitation. Section 396 explicitly recognises the right to compensation even where the offender is not identified or the case does not result in conviction, thereby reinforcing the rehabilitative and restorative goals of criminal justice.

Role of Courts and Recent Judicial Trends

Recent judicial trends indicate a heightened emphasis on timely and effective implementation of victim compensation schemes. Courts have increasingly directed that compensation orders be passed contemporaneously with judgments to prevent further hardship to victims. High Courts have also scrutinised the adequacy of compensation awarded, particularly in cases under the POCSO Act and offences against women, emphasising that nominal compensation undermines the purpose of victim rehabilitation.

Challenges in Implementation

Despite a robust statutory and judicial framework, the implementation of victim compensation schemes continues to face challenges. Delays in disbursement, lack of awareness among victims, bureaucratic obstacles in Legal Services Authorities, and significant disparities in compensation amounts across States remain persistent issues. These challenges often dilute the effectiveness of compensation mechanisms and highlight the need for greater institutional accountability.

Conclusion

Victim compensation under Indian criminal law represents a fundamental shift from a purely punitive model of justice to one that is restorative and victim-centric. Through Sections 357 and 357A of the CrPC, and now Section 396 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the law recognises that justice cannot be complete unless it addresses the harm suffered by victims. Judicial pronouncements have consistently reinforced that punishment alone does not heal trauma or restore dignity. A criminal justice system that aspires to be fair and humane must ensure that victims are not forgotten but are adequately compensated and rehabilitated as an integral part of the justice process.