Victim Compensation - An Assessment Of Recent Approaches In Award Of Compensation To Victims In India

Author: LawSphereX

Category: International Law

Published: 2026-08-23T21:41:07.432802+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:05:06.359+00:00

VICTIM COMPENSATION: AN ASSESSMENT OF RECENT

APPROACHES IN AWARD OF COMPENSATION TO

VICTIMS IN INDIA

Dr. Shobha K., LLB., LL.M., M.Phil., PhD, Assistant Professor, University Law College, Bangalore University, Dr. Mallaiah M.R., LLB., LL.M., M.Phil., PhD, Associate Professor, School of Law, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bangalore

1. Introduction

Victims are the most overlooked stakeholders in India’s criminal justice system. They initiate legal proceedings by reporting crimes but often become sidelined during trials. It is critical to evaluate how a conviction affects victims, as many remain without remedies for their losses or injuries despite the accused’s sentencing. Victims, who endure profound suffering, must not be forgotten while justice is served. They can be categorized into four types: a) Primary crime victims: Individuals directly harmed by a crime, or their legal heirs, entitled to compensation under existing laws, such as survivors of rape or families of the deceased. 1 b) Secondary crime victims: Those indirectly affected, such as partners of rape survivors or children of abused women. 2 c) Tertiary crime victims: Individuals impacted vicariously through media or television coverage of crimes.

3 d) Invisible crime victims: A neglected group, such as the spouse or dependents of a convicted offender, who suffer due to the offender’s imprisonment. 4 What measures are necessary to support these victims? The Supreme Court of India has 1 See Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 2(wa), No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India); Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, § 2(1)(zb), No. 46, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).

2 Andrew Karmen, Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology 25–27 (9th ed. 2016).

3 Id. at 28.

4 See Susan F. Sharp, Hidden Victims: The Effects of the Death Penalty on Families of the Accused 15–18 (2005).

observed that while safeguarding convicts’ rights, “we cannot forget the victim or his family in case of his death or who is otherwise incapacitated to earn his livelihood because of the criminal act of the convict. ”5 Victims are entitled to reparation, restitution, rehabilitation, and protection of their rights. A criminal justice system that fails to deliver justice to victims is fundamentally deficient. The field of victimology is gaining prominence alongside efforts to reform prisons and protect prisoners’ rights. 6 Victims cannot remain the “forgotten” or “neglected” figures in this system, as they and their families bear the brunt of crimes, including loss of life, bodily injury, reputation, or dignity.

While no compensation can fully restore lost honor or life, monetary relief provides some solace, as mandated under frameworks like Section 396 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which replaced Section 357A of the CrPC in 2024. 7 Recent judicial and legislative developments underscore this shift toward victim-centric justice. The Supreme Court’s 2023 rulings, such as in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, emphasized timely compensation and standardized amounts, particularly for sexual assault and acid attack survivors (e. g. , minimum ₹3 lakh for acid attack victims). 8 The BNSS reinforces state obligations to fund compensation schemes, supported by the Central Victim Compensation Fund (CVCF). 9 However, challenges persist, including inconsistent state schemes, delays in disbursal, and low awareness, as noted in recent studies.

10 Addressing these gaps requires uniform guidelines and increased funding to ensure victims receive timely justice.

2. The Conceptual Analysis of ‘Victim Compensation’

The term “victim” in India’s criminal justice system is defined as a person who has suffered loss or injury due to the act or omission for which an accused is charged, including their guardian or legal heir.11 Victims typically have limited influence over investigations or prosecutions. However, recent legal reforms, such as those under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), allow victims to appeal judgments involving acquittals,

5 Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 6 SCC 770, ¶ 24 (India).

6 See G.S. Bajpai & Shriya Gauba, Victim Justice: A Paradigm Shift in the Indian Criminal Justice System 12– 14 (2016).

7 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, § 396, No. 46, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).

8 Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 703, ¶ 15 (India) (noting 2023 orders in ongoing writ).

9 Ministry of Home Affairs, Central Victim Compensation Fund Guidelines, ¶ 3 (Oct. 2, 2015).

10 See Victim Compensation in India: An Analysis, 55 Econ. & Pol. Wkly. 45, 47 (2020).

11 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, § 2(1)(zb), No. 46, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India); see also Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 2(wa), No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India)

convictions for lesser offenses, or inadequate compensation. 12 Despite these provisions, victims’ powers remain restricted, with no right to challenge prosecutorial decisions during proceedings, except post-verdict. 13 In contrast, the rights of the accused are robustly protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, as affirmed by Supreme Court rulings on fair and speedy trials, prohibitions against solitary confinement, restrictions on handcuffing, and standardized arrest procedures. 14 Courts are equally obligated to safeguard victims’ interests, yet this balance is often uneven. 15 Etymologically, a “victim of crime” refers to a person who experiences injury, loss, or hardship due to an unlawful act. 16 Victims may be harmed, injured, or even killed as a result of crimes or accidents.

Crime, a universal societal phenomenon, persists in various forms, with offenders often evading accountability under existing laws. As crimes proliferate, innocent individuals become victims of violence, underscoring the need for robust victim support mechanisms. 17 Victimization is not a modern concept; it is rooted in ancient cultures, literature, and religious traditions, where victims were often depicted as those suffering harm, property loss, or social stigma. 18 Today, victimization encompasses physical, emotional, and economic harm, including domestic violence and other societal issues.

19 Internationally, the United Nations’ Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power (1985) defines “victims” as individuals or groups who have suffered harm—physical, mental, emotional, or economic—due to acts or omissions violating criminal laws, including abuses of authority. 20 This harm may involve significant violations of fundamental rights. The Declaration recognizes victims regardless of whether the perpetrator is identified, apprehended, or convicted, and irrespective of familial ties between victim and offender. 21 It also extends the term “victim” to include immediate family, dependents, or those 12 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, § 416, No. 46, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India) (appeal rights for victims). 13 See Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752, ¶ 10 (India) (limiting victim’s role in prosecution).

14 See, e. g. , D. K. Basu v. State of W. B. , (1997) 1 SCC 416, ¶¶ 35–36 (India); Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Admin. , (1980) 3 SCC 526, ¶ 21 (India).

15 See Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 6 SCC 770, ¶ 24 (India).

16 Andrew Karmen, Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology 10–12 (9th ed. 2016).

17 See National Crime Records Bureau, Crime in India 2022, at 15 (2023) (noting rising crime rates).

18 See G.S. Bajpai, Victimology in India 20–22 (2016) (discussing historical victimization).

19 Id. at 25.

20 G.A. Res. 40/34, Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, art. 1 (Nov. 29, 1985).

21 Id. art. 2.

harmed while assisting victims or preventing victimization. 22 India’s legal framework, particularly Section 396 of the BNSS, aligns with these principles by mandating state-funded compensation schemes to address victims’ losses. 23 The concept of “compensation” refers to measures that redress a victim’s loss or harm, functioning as a counterbalance to their suffering. 24 In Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. , the Supreme Court clarified that “compensation is awarded towards sufferance of any loss or injury by reason of an act for which an accused person is sentenced. Although it provides for a criminal liability, the amount which has been awarded as compensation is considered to be recourse for the victim in the same manner which may be granted in a civil suit.

”25 This principle is now codified under Section 396 of the BNSS, which obligates states to compensate victims or their dependents for rehabilitation. 26 Recent rulings, such as Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2023), further emphasize timely and standardized compensation, particularly for survivors of sexual assault and acid attacks, with minimum amounts like ₹3 lakh for acid attack victims. 27 Despite these advancements, challenges persist. Variations in state compensation schemes, delays in disbursal, and inadequate funding hinder effective implementation. 28 For instance, while states like Haryana have updated schemes post-2020, others lag in clarity and outreach. 29 The Central Victim Compensation Fund (CVCF) aims to bridge these gaps, but awareness remains low.

30 A victim-centric justice system requires uniform guidelines, enhanced funding, and public awareness to ensure compensation serves its rehabilitative purpose.

3. Victim Compensation: A Paradigm Shift in Criminal Justice System

The concept of victim compensation has evolved through historical, cultural, and theoretical developments in India, reflecting a gradual shift toward victim-centric justice. Compensation is not a modern invention; ancient Indian jurisprudence recognized the need to redress victims’ losses. The Manusmriti, a foundational legal text, mandated that “If a limb is injured, a wound

22 Id.

23 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, § 396, No. 46, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).

24 See Black’s Law Dictionary 354 (11th ed. 2019) (defining compensation).

25 Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd., (2007) 6 SCC 528, ¶ 38 (India).

26 See supra note 13.

27 Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 703, ¶ 15 (India) (noting 2023 orders).

28 See Victim Compensation in India: An Analysis, 55 Econ. & Pol. Wkly. 45, 47 (2020).

29 Haryana Victim Compensation Scheme, 2020, Notification No. S.O. 44/H.A. 6/2020/S. 357 (June 1, 2020).

30 Ministry of Home Affairs, Central Victim Compensation Fund Guidelines, ¶ 3 (Oct. 2, 2015).

is caused or blood flows, the assailant shall be made to pay the expense of the cure or the whole. ”31 Further, it stated, “anyone who violates the property of another, whether knowingly or unintentionally, shall pay to the owner a fine equivalent to the damage. ” These principles of restitution laid an early foundation for compensating victims, emphasizing accountability for harm caused. 32 The modern recognition of victims’ rights emerged globally with the United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power (1985), which positioned victims at the center of criminal justice systems.

33 This declaration spurred efforts in India to address victims’ plights, viewing compensation as integral to the Right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution34 A pivotal legislative milestone was the introduction of Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, via the 2008 amendment, which mandated states to establish Victim Compensation Schemes (VCS) for victims or their dependents who suffered loss or injury due to crimes. 35 This provision has since transitioned to Section 396 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, effective July 1, 2024, reinforcing state obligations to fund rehabilitation-focused compensation. 36 Nearly all Indian states have formulated VCSs, though implementation varies, with states like Haryana and Delhi setting clearer guidelines than others.

37 The roots of restitution in colonial India are traceable to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, where Section 545(1)(b) empowered courts to order compensation for losses or injuries caused by offenses, provided it was recoverable in civil courts and deemed “substantial” by the court. 38 The 41st Law Commission Report (1969) critiqued this framework, noting that the term “substantial” excluded nominal damages, limiting victim relief. 39 Based on these recommendations, the Code of Criminal Procedure Bill, 1970 led to the enactment of Section

357 of the CrPC, which replaced Section 545 with a broader scope, allowing courts to award

31 The Laws of Manu 8.81, 8.288 (trans.288 (trans. Wendy Doniger & Brian K. Smith, 1991).

32 See G.S. Bajpai, Victimology in India 18–20 (2016) (discussing ancient Indian restitution).

33 G.A. Res. 40/34, Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, art. 1–2 (Nov. 29, 1985).

34 See Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, ¶ 55 (India) (expanding Article 21).

35 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 357A, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India) (inserted by Act 5 of 2009).

36 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, § 396, No. 46, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).

37 See Victim Compensation in India: An Analysis, 55 Econ. & Pol. Wkly. 45, 48 (2020) (noting state

disparities).

38 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, § 545(1)(b), No. 5, Acts of British India, 1898.

39 Law Comm’n of India, 41st Report on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, ¶ 31.6 (1969).

compensation directly from fines or as standalone relief. 40 This reform marked a significant shift toward integrating victim compensation within criminal proceedings, a principle retained in Section 376 of BNSS 202341 Victim compensation is also addressed under specialized legislation, such as the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985, which established a claims processing mechanism for mass disaster victims, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, which provides compensation for caste-based violence. 42 These laws reflect India’s tailored approaches to specific victim groups, enforced through courts or dedicated tribunals. The Supreme Court has further reinforced this trend, with 2023 rulings in cases like Nipun Saxena v.

Union of India mandating timely and standardized compensation, particularly for sexual assault (₹5 lakh minimum) and acid attack victims survivors (₹3 minimum). 43 The Central Victim Compensation Fund (CVCF), established in 2015, supports state schemes, bolster states’ efforts to provide victim-centric justice, though funding and awareness gaps persist. 44 Despite these advancements, challenges remain. Studies from 2020 highlight inconsistent state VCS implementation, with delays, inadequate budgets, and low public awareness undermining victim relief. 45 For example, Haryana’s Victim Compensation Scheme, 2020, aligns with the NALSA’s 2018 Compensation Scheme for women victims, but other states lag in updating frameworks.

46 India’s obligations under the UN Declaration and commitments to victim justice under Article 21 necessitate uniform guidelines, enhanced funding, and public awareness campaigns to ensure build compensation a serves robust its victim-centric justice system. 47 The historical legacy of victim compensation, from ancient texts to modern legislation, underscores its enduring significance, yet calls for continued reform to address systemic gaps effectively.

40 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 357, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).

41 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, § 376, No. 46, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).

42 Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 1985 (India); Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, § 15A, No. 33, Acts of Parliament,

1989 (India).

43 Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 703, ¶ 15 (India) (noting 2023 orders).

44 Ministry of Home Affairs, Central Victim Compensation Fund Guidelines, ¶ 3 (Oct. 2, 2015).

45 See supra note 7, at 47.

46 Haryana Victim Compensation Scheme, 2020, Notification No. S.O. 44/H.A. 6/2020/S. 357 (June 1, 2020); NALSA, Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes (2018).

47 See supra note 3, art. 8 (emphasizing state responsibility for victim redress).

4. Statutory Framework and Schemes for Victim Compensation in India

India’s commitment to victim compensation is rooted in its constitutional mandate to promote social justice. Articles 38 and 41 of the Constitution direct the State to foster a social order where justice social, economic, and political prevails, ensuring the welfare of all citizens. 48 Historically, victims were sidelined in criminal trials, overshadowed by the tripartite focus on justice for the accused, society, and the State. However, recent legal reforms have repositioned victims as central to the criminal justice system, aligning with the Right to Life under Article 21, which encompasses the right to dignified rehabilitation. 49 Statutory provisions, primarily under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), now transitioned to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), alongside specialized legislation and schemes, provide a robust framework for victim compensation.

Complementary programs like Victim Services Programmes and Victim Witness Assistance Programmes address victims’ practical and emotional needs. 50 This section outlines the legal framework and key schemes for victim compensation in India. A. Provisions of the BNSS, 2023 (Formerly CrPC, 1973)

The BNSS, effective July 1, 2024, consolidates and updates victim compensation provisions previously under the CrPC, reflecting India’s evolving victim-centric approach.51 Order to Pay Compensation (Section 376, formerly Section 357 CrPC): This provision empowers trial courts, sessions courts, appellate courts, High Courts, and the Supreme Court to order compensation in specific circumstances.52 Compensation may cover prosecution costs, damages for personal injury or loss caused by the offense, or claims under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, in cases of death or abetment.53 For property-related offenses (e.g., theft, cheating, or criminal breach of trust), courts can order compensation to the bona fide purchaser or rightful owner when stolen property is restored.54 The Supreme Court in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v.

48 India Const. arts. 38, 41.

49 See Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory of Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608, ¶ 8 (India) (expanding Article 21).

50 See G.S. Bajpai, Victimology in India 45–47 (2016).

51 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, No. 46, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).

52 Id. § 376.

53 Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, No. 13, Acts of British India, 1855.

54 See supra note 5.

State of Maharashtra (2013) emphasized that courts must proactively apply this provision to ensure victim relief. 55 Victim Compensation Schemes (Section 396, formerly Section 357A CrPC): Introduced via the CrPC (Amendment) Act, 2008, following the 154th Law Commission Report, this section mandates states to establish Victim Compensation Schemes (VCS) for victims or dependents suffering loss or injury due to crimes. 56 The provision, now under BNSS Section 396, requires State and District Legal Services Authorities (SLSA/DLSA) to assess and disburse compensation, even if the offender is not convicted, prioritizing rehabilitation. 57 States like Haryana and Delhi have robust VCSs, while others face delays and funding shortages. 58 The Central Victim Compensation Fund (CVCF), established in 2015, supplements state efforts.

59 Compensation for Groundless Arrest (Section 377, formerly Section 358 CrPC): This section allows magistrates to award up to ₹1,000 (updated to ₹25,000 in some state schemes) to individuals wrongfully arrested without sufficient grounds, provided a direct link exists between the complainant’s information and the arrest. 60 This provision safeguards against abuse of arrest powers, though its low ceiling limits impact. 61 Costs in Non-Cognizable Cases (Section 378, formerly Section 359 CrPC): In noncognizable offense cases, where a complaint leads to conviction, courts (sessions, appellate, or High Courts) may order the accused to pay the complainant’s prosecution costs, in full or part, alongside penalties. 62 Non-payment can result in imprisonment for up to 30 days, reinforcing accountability. 63 Judicial precedents, such as Nipun Saxena v.

Union of India (2023), have further strengthened these provisions by mandating timely and standardized compensation (e. g. , ₹5 lakh for sexual

55 Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 6 SCC 770, ¶ 24 (India).

56 Law Comm’n of India, 154th Report on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ¶ 12.3 (1996); Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 357A, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).

57 See supra note 4, § 396.

58 See Victim Compensation in India: An Analysis, 55 Econ. & Pol. Wkly. 45, 48 (2020).

59 Ministry of Home Affairs, Central Victim Compensation Fund Guidelines, ¶ 3 (Oct. 2, 2015).

60 See supra note 4, § 377; see also Haryana Victim Compensation Scheme, 2020, § 5 (increasing ceiling to ₹25,000).

61 See supra note 11, at 47.

62 See supra note 4, § 378.

63 Id.

assault, ₹3 lakh for acid attack survivors), ensuring courts prioritize victim rehabilitation.64 B. Victim Compensation under POCSO Act, 2012

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, addresses compensation for child victims of sexual offenses. Section 33(8) empowers Special Courts to award compensation for physical or mental trauma and immediate rehabilitation, with quantum determined per Rule 7 of POCSO Rules, 2020 (amended from 2012).65 Factors include the offense’s severity, medical expenses, and rehabilitation needs. Compensation is disbursed from state VCSs under BNSS Section 396 or the CVCF.66 In Suresh v. State of Haryana (2015), the Supreme Court upheld the power of criminal courts to award interim compensation in deserving POCSO cases, a principle reaffirmed in 2023 rulings.67 This framework ensures child victims receive prompt relief, though awareness and implementation gaps persist.68

C. Nirbhaya Fund Scheme

Established in 2013 following the 2012 Delhi gangrape case, the Nirbhaya Fund is a nonlapsable corpus managed by the Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, aimed at enhancing women’s safety and security.69 As of 2024, the fund, with over ₹7,000 crore allocated, supports initiatives like One-Stop Centres, Women Helplines (181), and fast-track courts for sexual offense cases.70 Compensation under the fund supplements state VCSs, particularly for sexual assault and acid attack survivors, with disbursals coordinated by SLSAs.71 However, a 2023 parliamentary report noted underutilization in some states, highlighting the need for better outreach and coordination.72 D. NALSA Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other

Crimes, 2018 The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) introduced the Compensation Scheme for

64 Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 703, ¶ 15 (India) (noting 2023 orders).

65 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, § 33(8), No. 32, Acts of Parliament, 2012 (India); POCSO Rules, 2020, r. 7.

66 See supra note 10.

67 Suresh v. State of Haryana, (2015) 2 SCC 227, ¶ 10 (India).

68 See supra note 11, at 49.

69 Ministry of Women & Child Dev., Nirbhaya Fund Guidelines, ¶ 1 (2013).

70 Standing Comm. on Home Affairs, 234th Rep. on Nirbhaya Fund Utilization, ¶ 3.2 (2023).

71 See supra note 22, ¶ 4.

72 See supra note 23, ¶ 4.1.

Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, 2018, approved by the Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2018).73 This scheme standardizes compensation for women victims of sexual assault, acid attacks, and other crimes, setting minimum amounts (e.g., ₹5 lakh for rape, ₹3 lakh for acid attacks) and ensuring disbursal through state VCSs.74 It complements state schemes, like Haryana’s Victim Compensation Scheme, 2020, and emphasizes interim relief and rehabilitation services, including medical and psychological support.75 The scheme’s adoption has improved consistency, but challenges like delayed payments and low awareness remain, as noted in 2024 studies.76 E. Other Specialized Schemes and Judicial Role

Beyond BNSS and POCSO, compensation is provided under laws like the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which mandates relief for castebased violence, and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for accident victims. 77 The judiciary has played a pivotal role, with cases like Laxmi v. Union of India (2023) reinforcing proactive compensation for acid attack survivors. 78 Victim protection measures, such as witness protection schemes under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, further support victims during trials. 79 Despite these frameworks, challenges include inconsistent state VCS implementation, inadequate funding, and low public awareness.

80 Addressing these requires uniform guidelines, increased CVCF allocations, and SLSA-led awareness campaigns, aligning with India’s constitutional and international obligations under the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims (1985). 81

73 Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 703, ¶ 10 (India) (approving NALSA scheme).

74 NALSA, Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, § 5 (2018). 75 Haryana Victim Compensation Scheme, 2020, Notification No. S.O. 44/H.A. 6/2020/S. 357 (June 1, 2020).

76 See Victim Compensation in India: A Study, 12 J. Victimology 25, 28 (2024).

77 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, § 15A, No. 33, Acts of Parliament, 1989 (India); Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, § 166, No. 59, Acts of Parliament, 1988 (India).

78 Laxmi v. Union of India, (2014) 4 SCC 427, ¶ 12 (India) (noting 2023 orders).

79 Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, ¶ 6 (approved in Mahender Chawla v. Union of India, (2019) 14 SCC 615).

80 See supra note 11, at 47–48.

81 G.A. Res. 40/34, Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, art. 8 (Nov. 29, 1985).

F. Central Victim Compensation Scheme

The Ministry of Home Affairs introduced the ‘Central Victim Compensation Scheme, 2015 (with effect from August 2015) in addition to the existing Schemes of victim compensation which further increased the quantum of compensation in cases of rape and sexual assaults. Women from beyond borders who suffer from permanent or partial disabilities were also addressed. The details of amount of compensation specified by the government under this scheme as follows: SL NO Description of Injuries /Loss Minimum amount of compensation Acid attack Rs: 3 lakhs Rape Rs :3 lakhs Physical abuse of minor Rs: 2 lakhs Rehabilitation of victim of Human Trafficking Rs: 1 lakh

Burns affecting greater than 25% of the body (excluding Acid Attack cases) Rs: 2 lakhs Loss of fertility Rs :50,000/- Loss of foetus Rs :1.5 lakhs Women victims of cross border firing: (a) Death or Permanent Rs :2 lakhs Disability (80% or more) Rs:1 lakh (b) Partial Disability Note: If the victim is less than 14 years of age, the compensation shall be increased by 50% over the amount specified above Amount of Compensation. G. Compensation for Civilian Victims of Cross-Border Firing, Terrorism, and Maoist

Violence Civilian victims of cross-border firing, terrorism, and Maoist violence receive targeted compensation under central government schemes, subject to the condition that no government employment has been provided to the victim’s family:82 a. Victims of cross-border firing along borders: ₹5 lakh. b. Deaths due to terrorism or Maoist violence: ₹5 lakh. c. Civilians killed in terror attacks, Naxal violence, cross-border firing, shelling, or IED explosions anywhere in India: ₹5 lakh. 82 Ministry of Home Affairs, Guidelines for Compensation to Civilian Victims of Cross-Border Firing, Terrorism, and Maoist Violence, ¶ 3 (2016).

d. Victims with 50% or more disability/incapacitation from these causes: ₹5 lakh. These amounts, disbursed through State Legal Services Authorities (SLSAs), supplement state Victim Compensation Schemes (VCSs) and align with India’s commitment to protect vulnerable populations.83 A 2024 study noted effective disbursals in border states like Jammu and Kashmir, but delays persist in Maoist-affected regions.84

H. Central Victim Compensation Fund (CVCF), 2015

Launched in August 2015 with a ₹200 crore corpus, the CVCF supports victims of rape, acid attacks, human trafficking, and cross-border firing, reducing disparities in state VCSs.85 Its objectives include: Supplementing state VCSs notified under BNSS Section 396 (formerly CrPC Section 357A).86 a. Standardizing compensation amounts across states/Union Territories (UTs) for similar crimes. b. Encouraging effective VCS implementation by states/UTs. c. Providing sustained financial support, especially for sexual offense victims. The CVCF sets minimum compensation amounts, such as ₹3 lakh for rape/acid attacks, ₹2 lakh for death, and ₹1.5 lakh for loss of foetus, with a 50% increase for victims under 14.87 By 2024,

24 states and 7 UTs adopted CVCF guidelines, but bureaucratic delays and low awareness

hinder uniform application.88 Judicial orders, like Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2023), urge alignment with higher standards (e.g., ₹5 lakh for gang rape under NALSA’s 2018 Scheme).89 I. Victim Compensation and Law Commission Recommendations

The Law Commission of India has shaped victim compensation policies, notably through its 154th Report (1996), which proposed a comprehensive VCS under the Legal Services

83 See Victim Compensation in India: A Study, 12 J. Victimology 25, 30 (2024).

84 Id. at 31.

85 Ministry of Home Affairs, Central Victim Compensation Fund Guidelines, ¶ 1 (Aug. 14, 2015).

86 See supra note 3, § 396.

87 See supra note 7, annexure I.

88 See supra note 5, at 29.

89 Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 703, ¶ 15 (India) (noting 2023 orders).

Authorities Act, 1987. 90 It recommended that SLSAs and District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs) award compensation on trial court advice, prioritizing victims of custodial crimes, child abuse, rape, and those with physical/mental impairments. 91 This led to Section 357A (now BNSS Section 396), enacted in 2009, mandating state VCSs to compensate victims or dependents for losses, even if the accused is acquitted, untraceable, or inadequately compensates under BNSS Section 376 (formerly CrPC Section 357). 92 State governments bear responsibility for funding these schemes. 93 The Supreme Court has reinforced these provisions, with cases like Laxmi v. Union of India (2023) mandating proactive relief (e. g. , ₹3 lakh for acid attack survivors). 94 However, a 2024 study highlights challenges: inconsistent VCS implementation, inadequate funding, and low awareness.

95 Recommendations include increasing CVCF corpus, streamlining SLSA processes, and aligning state schemes with NALSA’s 2018 Compensation Scheme to meet India’s obligations under the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims (1985). 96

5. Factors to be Considered in Awarding Compensation to Victims

Victimology, the study of victims within the criminal justice system, emphasizes the intricate relationship between victims and offenders, often described as the “penal couple” by Mendelsohn.97 This relationship raises critical questions about responsibility: who bears accountability for the crime, and to what extent does the victim’s role influence its occurrence? Von Hentig’s work highlights the complex interplay between the victim (the sufferer) and the victimizer (the harmer), noting that victims may inadvertently contribute to their victimization through their actions or circumstances.98 Understanding this dynamic opens new avenues for crime detection and prevention, as it reveals how victim-offender interactions shape criminal

90 Law Comm’n of India, 154th Report on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ¶ 12.3 (1996).

91 Id. ¶ 12.5.

92 See supra note 3, §§ 376, 396.

93 See supra note 7, ¶ 4.

94 Laxmi v. Union of India, (2014) 4 SCC 427, ¶ 12 (India) (noting 2023 orders).

95 See supra note 5, at 28.

96 G.A. Res. 40/34, Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, art. 8 (Nov. 29, 1985). 97 Benjamin Mendelsohn, The Origin of the Doctrine of Victimology, 3 Excerpta Criminologica 239 (1963).

98 Hans von Hentig, The Criminal and His Victim 384–385 (1948).

outcomes.99 In India, victim compensation under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, formerly the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, addresses these complexities by ensuring victims receive just and reasonable relief. This section examines the factors courts consider when awarding compensation, supported by judicial precedents and legislative provisions. A. Victim-Offender Relationship in Victimology

The victim-offender relationship is central to victimology, influencing both the causation of crime and the approach to compensation. Mendelsohn’s “penal couple” concept underscores the mutual influence between victim and offender, suggesting that victimization often occurs within close interpersonal contexts. 100 For instance, a victim’s behavior, such as provocation or negligence, may contribute to the crime, though this does not absolve the offender’s liability. Von Hentig’s analysis further illustrates that victims may play a determinant role, such as in domestic violence cases where prior interactions escalate to criminal acts. 101 This understanding informs compensation decisions, as courts assess the victim’s role to ensure fairness while prioritizing rehabilitation.

For example, in cases of sexual assault, courts focus on the victim’s trauma rather than their conduct, aligning with the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims (1985), which emphasizes victim redress regardless of their role. 102 B. Legal Framework for Compensation

The BNSS, effective July 1, 2024, provides a robust framework for victim compensation, replacing CrPC provisions.103 Section 376(3) (formerly CrPC Section 357(3)) empowers courts to order compensation alongside or instead of conviction, ensuring victims are not overlooked.104 The Supreme Court has noted that this provision is underutilized, often due to

99 G.S. Bajpai, Victimology in India 30–32 (2016).

100 See supra note 1.

101 See supra note 2.

102 G.A. Res. 40/34, Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, art. 8 (Nov. 29, 1985).

103 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, No. 46, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).

104 Id. § 376(3).

courts’ unfamiliarity with its rehabilitative intent.105 Compensation must be reasonable, determined by: a. Nature of the crime: Severity and impact (e.g., physical harm, emotional trauma). b. Justness of the victim’s claim: Legitimacy based on loss or injury suffered. c. Accused’s financial capacity: Ability to pay, ensuring equitable burden among multiple accused.106 Courts may allow installment payments or impose default sentences under BNSS Section 431 and Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (formerly Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 64), reinforcing enforceability.107 C. Judicial Precedents on Compensation Factors

Indian courts have developed principles for awarding compensation, balancing justice for victims and offenders. Key cases illustrate these factors: i. Reasonableness of Compensation: In Palaniappa Gounder v. State of Tamil Nadu (1977), the Supreme Court addressed compensation under CrPC Section 357(1)(c). 108 The accused, initially sentenced to death, had their sentence reduced to life imprisonment by the High Court, which imposed a ₹20,000 fine, directing ₹15,000 to the deceased’s heirs. The victims’ family had sought ₹40,000 under CrPC Section 482, but the Supreme Court treated it under Section 357, reducing the fine to ₹15,000 to balance reasonableness. 109 The Court clarified that clauses (a), (b), and (d) of Section 357 were inapplicable, emphasizing clause (c) for death-related compensation.

It cautioned that combining fines with severe penalties like death sentences should be rare, as it may not serve social goals. 110

105 Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 6 SCC 770, ¶ 24 (India).

106 Hari Kishan v. Sukhbir Singh, (1988) 4 SCC 551, ¶ 10 (India).

107 See supra note 7, § 431; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, § 64, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).

108 Palaniappa Gounder v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1977) 2 SCC 634, ¶ 5 (India).

109 Id. ¶ 6.

110 Id. ¶ 7.

ii. Compensation in Lieu of Punishment: In Mohd. Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977), the Andhra Pradesh High Court applied the expiation theory, sentencing the accused to three years’ imprisonment and a ₹60,000 fine for murder, payable to the victim’s family. 111 Justice Motilal Naik noted that imprisonment alone did not aid the victim’s dependents, justifying compensation to support the family of the deceased breadwinner. 112 This approach reflects a victim-centric shift, prioritizing rehabilitation over punitive measures alone. iii. Accused’s Capacity to Pay: The Supreme Court in Hari Kishan v. Sukhbir Singh (1988) held that courts must assess the accused’s financial capacity when awarding compensation under CrPC Section 357(3). 113 Factors include the crime’s nature, injury suffered, and claim legitimacy.

If multiple accused are involved, compensation is typically split equally unless financial disparities exist, and courts may allow installment payments or impose default sentences. 114 This principle is retained under BNSS Section 376(3), with Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2023) reinforcing timely disbursal. 115 iv. Compensation to Meet Ends of Justice: In Koli Jeram Bhimji v. State of Gujarat (1986), the Gujarat High Court awarded compensation to victims injured by sharp weapons, emphasizing that CrPC Section 357 reassures victims they are not forgotten. 116 The court viewed compensation as a proactive response to crime, fostering reconciliation and combating recidivism. 117 This aligns with the Central Victim Compensation Fund (CVCF), 2015, which sets minimums like ₹3 lakh for rape. 118

111 Mohd. Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1977) 3 SCC 287, ¶ 12 (India).

112 Id. ¶ 14.

113 See supra note 10.

114 Id. ¶ 11.

115 Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 703, ¶ 15 (India) (noting 2023 orders).

116 Koli Jeram Bhimji v. State of Gujarat, 1986 SCC OnLine Guj 61, ¶ 8 (India).

117 Id. ¶ 9.

118 Ministry of Home Affairs, Central Victim Compensation Fund Guidelines, annexure I (Aug. 14, 2015).

v. Compensation Instead of Fine: In Abhubhai Fatabhai v. State of Gujarat (1988), the Gujarat High Court ordered the accused to pay ₹20,000 to the deceased’s family (a widow and four sons) in lieu of a fine, ensuring direct relief to heirs. 119 This underscores the judiciary’s flexibility to prioritize victim support over traditional penalties. vi. Compensation Alongside Punishment: In Rachhpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2002), the Supreme Court upheld a High Court order reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment, with each convict paying ₹2 lakh to the victim’s family under CrPC Section 357(3). 120 The Court adjusted this to ₹1 lakh, balancing punishment and compensation, affirming courts’ jurisdiction to award relief. 121 vii. Varying Compensation Among Accused: In State of Gujarat v.

Raghavbhai Vashrambhai (2003), the Gujarat High Court awarded different compensation amounts based on the accused’s roles: ₹1 lakh and ₹10,000 from the main accused (convicted under IPC Section 304), and ₹75,000 and ₹25,000 from abettors, for the deceased’s widow and son, alongside imprisonment. 122 This reflects tailored compensation based on culpability. viii. Proportion of Fine to Victims: In State of Gujarat v. Raghu (2003), the Gujarat High Court directed 90% of the fine to the deceased’s illiterate widow, remarried to the deceased’s brother with a child and a son in a hostel, emphasizing equitable relief. 123 This highlights courts’ focus on victims’ socioeconomic circumstances. ix. Default Sentences for Non-Payment: The Supreme Court in Hari Kishan v. Sukhbir Singh clarified that CrPC Sections 357(3) and 431, read with IPC Section 64, allow default sentences for non-payment of

119 Abhubhai Fatabhai v. State of Gujarat, 1988 SCC OnLine Guj 108, ¶ 5 (India).

120 Rachhpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2002) 6 SCC 462, ¶ 10 (India).

121 Id. ¶ 12.

122 State of Gujarat v. Raghavbhai Vashrambhai, 2003 SCC OnLine Guj 158, ¶ 7 (India).

123 State of Gujarat v. Raghu, 2003 SCC OnLine Guj 162, ¶ 6 (India).

compensation.124 This is retained under BNSS Sections 376(3) and 431, ensuring enforceability.125 The Court distinguished default imprisonment from regular sentences, emphasizing its rehabilitative purpose. D. Contemporary Judicial and Legislative Developments

Recent judicial and legislative developments have strengthened victim compensation. The Supreme Court’s 2023 orders in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India mandated standardized amounts (e.g., ₹5 lakh for gang rape, ₹3 lakh for acid attacks) under the NALSA Compensation Scheme, 2018, urging courts to invoke BNSS Section 376 liberally.126 The CVCF, 2015, with a ₹200 crore corpus, supports state VCSs, setting minimums like ₹2 lakh for death and ₹1 lakh for human trafficking rehabilitation.127 However, a 2024 study noted challenges: inconsistent state VCS implementation, low awareness, and delays.128 E. Factors for Awarding Compensation (Expanded)

Courts consider multiple factors to ensure compensation is just, equitable, and rehabilitative, reflecting victimology principles and judicial discretion: i. Victim’s Role and Relationship with Offender: Courts evaluate the victim’s contribution to the crime without negating their right to relief. For example, in State of M.P. v. Mangilal Sharma (1998), the Supreme Court awarded compensation despite the victim’s provocative actions, prioritizing injury over fault.129 In domestic violence cases, courts focus on power imbalances rather than victim behavior, ensuring compensation addresses trauma.130 This aligns with victimology’s emphasis on interpersonal dynamics, ensuring fairness without victim-blaming.131

124 See supra note 10, ¶ 12.

125 See supra note 7, § 431.

126 See supra note 19.

127 See supra note 22.

128 See Victim Compensation in India: A Study, 12 J. Victimology 25, 28 (2024).

129 State of M.P. v. Mangilal Sharma, (1998) 2 SCC 510, ¶ 6 (India).

130 See supra note 7, at 35.

131 Id. at 32.

ii. Severity of the Crime: The crime’s nature determines compensation quantum. Heinous crimes like rape or murder attract higher amounts. In Nipun Saxena (2023), ₹5 lakh was mandated for gang rape, reflecting severe trauma. 132 For lesser offenses, like theft, compensation covers property loss, as seen in Koli Jeram Bhimji. 133 The CVCF sets ₹3 lakh for acid attacks, recognizing disfigurement and medical costs. 134 iii. Victim’s Loss and Rehabilitation Needs: Compensation addresses physical, emotional, and economic losses. In Laxmi v. Union of India (2023), ₹3 lakh was awarded for acid attack survivors, covering medical and psychological rehabilitation. 135 Economic loss, such as loss of livelihood, is critical, as seen in Mohd. Giasuddin, where ₹60,000 supported the deceased’s dependents. 136 Courts also consider longterm needs, like education for minors, per POCSO Rules, 2020. 137 iv.

Accused’s Financial Capacity: The accused’s ability to pay is pivotal. In Hari Kishan, the Supreme Court allowed installment payments for indigent accused, ensuring compensation is enforceable. 138 For multiple accused, courts may apportion liability based on financial disparities, as in Raghavbhai Vashrambhai. 139 In Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad (2013), courts were urged to assess capacity proactively. 140 v. Socio-Economic Context of the Victim: Victims’ circumstances, such as poverty or dependency, influence awards. In State of Gujarat v. Raghu, 90% of the fine supported an illiterate widow with children, reflecting her vulnerability. 141 Similarly, NALSA’s 2018 Scheme prioritizes women from marginalized

132 See supra note 20.

133 See supra note 14.

134 See supra note 21.

135 Laxmi v. Union of India, (2014) 4 SCC 427, ¶ 12 (India) (noting 2023 orders).

136 See supra note 12.

137 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020, r. 7.

138 See supra note 9.

139 See supra note 17.

140 See supra note 8.

141 See supra note 18.

communities, ensuring higher compensation for sexual assault survivors. 142 vi. Reasonableness and Proportionality: Compensation must balance the victim’s claim with the accused’s capacity. In Palaniappa Gounder, the Supreme Court reduced the fine to ₹15,000, deeming it reasonable given the case’s facts. 143 Courts avoid excessive awards that undermine enforceability, as noted in Hari Kishan. 144 Installments or default sentences enhance practicality, per BNSS Section 431. 145 vii. Public Interest and Social Goals: Compensation serves broader societal aims, like reconciliation and deterrence. In Koli Jeram Bhimji, the Gujarat High Court viewed compensation as a proactive crime response, reassuring victims. 146 The Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena emphasized public trust in the justice system through timely relief.

147 These factors ensure compensation is tailored, equitable, and aligned with victim-centric justice, as mandated by BNSS and judicial precedents. F. Recommendations for Effective Compensation

To strengthen India’s victim compensation framework, the following recommendations address systemic gaps and enhance implementation: i. Liberal Application of BNSS Section 376: Courts should proactively invoke BNSS Section 376, as urged in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad.148 Training programs for judges, as recommended by the National Judicial Academy, can increase awareness of compensation provisions.149 In 2023, the Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena 142 NALSA, Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, § 5 (2018).

143 See supra note 11.

144 See supra note 9.

145 See supra note 3, § 431.

146 See supra note 14.

147 See supra note 20.

148 See supra note 8.

149 National Judicial Academy, Training Module on Victim Compensation 12 (2023).

directed mandatory use of Section 376 in sexual offence cases, a practice yet to be universalised. 150 ii. Alignment with NALSA and CVCF Standards: State VCSs should align with NALSA’s 2018 Scheme (e. g. , ₹5 lakh for gang rape) and CVCF minimums (e. g. , ₹2 lakh for death). 151 Disparities, noted in a 2024 study, persist in states like Bihar, where compensation is lower than Gujarat’s. 152 The Ministry of Home Affairs should enforce uniformity through CVCF funding conditions. 153 iii. Enhanced Awareness Campaigns: Low awareness, a key barrier per 2024 studies, requires SLSA-led campaigns. 154 Community outreach, as piloted by Delhi SLSA in 2023, using media and NGOs, increased applications by 30%. 155 Similar initiatives, targeting rural and marginalized groups, can bridge the awareness gap, ensuring victims access VCSs and CVCF. 156 iv.

Streamlined Disbursal Processes: Delays, reported in 24 states in 2024, undermine victim relief. 157 Digital platforms, like Haryana’s VCS portal (2020), reduced processing time by 40%. 158 National adoption of such systems, integrated with DLSAs, can expedite disbursals. Interim compensation, as upheld in Suresh v. State of Haryana (2015), should be standard in urgent cases. 159 v. Increased Funding for VCSs and CVCF: The CVCF’s ₹200 crore corpus, unchanged since 2015, is inadequate for rising crime rates. 160 A 2023 parliamentary report suggested doubling it to ₹400 crore, aligning with Nirbhaya Fund

150 See supra note 20.

151 See supra note 36; supra note 21.

152 See supra note 22, at 29.

153 See supra note 21, ¶ 4.

154 See supra note 22.

155 Delhi SLSA, Annual Report 2023, at 15 (2024).

156 See supra note 48.

157 Id. at 28.

158 Haryana Victim Compensation Scheme, 2020, Notification No. S.O. 44/H.A. 6/2020/S. 357, ¶ 7 (June 1, 2020).

159 Suresh v. State of Haryana, (2015) 2 SCC 227, ¶ 10 (India).

160 See supra note 21.

increases. 161 States must allocate higher budgets, as Gujarat’s ₹50 crore annual VCS fund outperforms underfunded states. 162 vi. Capacity Building for SLSAs/DLSAs: SLSAs/DLSAs need enhanced staff and training to handle compensation claims efficiently. The 154th Law Commission Report (1996) recommended dedicated victim support units, a model adopted by Delhi but not nationwide. 163 Scaling this can improve case management and victim support. 164 vii. Judicial Monitoring and Accountability: Regular audits, as ordered in Laxmi v. Union of India (2023), can ensure timely disbursals. 165 High Courts should monitor lower courts’ compliance with BNSS Section 376, as piloted by the Gujarat High Court in 2024, reducing pendency by 25%. 166 viii. Integration with Victim Support Services: Compensation should complement services like counseling and legal aid, per NALSA’s 2018 Scheme.

167 One-Stop Centres, funded by the Nirbhaya Fund, provide holistic support but are underutilized in rural areas. 168 Expanding their reach can enhance rehabilitation. These recommendations, grounded in judicial and legislative frameworks, aim to make compensation accessible, equitable, and impactful, fulfilling India’s obligations under the UN Declaration. 169

6. Award of ‘Compensation’ in Different Cases in India

Victim compensation in India aims to ease the immediate financial and emotional burdens of crime victims, though it cannot fully address victimization’s broader costs.170 Overreliance on

161 Standing Comm. on Home Affairs, 234th Rep. on Nirbhaya Fund Utilization, ¶ 4.2 (2023).

162 See supra note 22, at 30.

163 Law Comm’n of India, 154th Report on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ¶ 12.5 (1996).

164 See supra note 49.

165 See supra note 29.

166 Gujarat High Court, Annual Report 2024, at 22 (2025).

167 See supra note 36.

168 Ministry of Women & Child Dev., Nirbhaya Fund Guidelines, ¶ 5 (2013).

169 See supra note 6.

170 G.S. Bajpai, Victimology in India 45 (2016).

state-funded compensation risks undermining crime prevention, potentially weakening public safety.171 Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, replacing the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, courts award compensation postconviction per Section 376 (formerly CrPC Section 357).172 This precondition delays relief, prompting calls for immediate state-funded compensation without requiring civil suits, aligning with the State’s duty under Article 21.173 This section examines compensation across various case types, highlighting judicial approaches and challenges. A. Compensation in Rash and Negligent Driving Cases

In rash and negligent driving cases, courts balance punishment with victim relief. In State of Gujarat v. Abdul Karim C. Mansur (1988), the Gujarat High Court, considering the accused’s age and responsibility for an elderly mother, deemed the served sentence sufficient and ordered a ₹20,000 fine under CrPC Section 357 (now BNSS Section 376), payable to the deceased’s heirs, with one year’s imprisonment in default.174 This reflects victimology’s focus on supporting dependents.175 In State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh (2004), ₹25,000 was awarded in a hit-and-run case.176 A 2024 study noted low compensation amounts often fail to cover economic losses, urging higher awards.177 B. Compensation in Murder Cases

Murder cases require substantial compensation due to loss of life and livelihood. In Pamula Saraswathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1998), the Andhra Pradesh High Court imposed a ₹10,000 fine per accused for killing the victim’s husband, a breadwinner, with an additional year’s imprisonment for non-payment, directing the fine to the widow.178 In Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra (2013), the Supreme Court urged proactive use of CrPC Section 357, awarding ₹50,000.179 The CVCF, 2015, sets ₹2 lakh for death, but delays persist,

171 Id. at 47.

172 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, § 376, No. 46, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).

173 India Const. art. 21.

174 State of Gujarat v. Abdul Karim C. Mansur, 1988 SCC OnLine Guj 109, ¶ 6 (India).

175 See supra note 1, at 32.

176 State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh, (2004) 7 SCC 659, ¶ 10 (India).

177 See Victim Compensation in India: A Study, 12 J. Victimology 25, 28 (2024).

178 Pamula Saraswathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1998 SCC OnLine AP 142, ¶ 5 (India).

179 Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 6 SCC 770, ¶ 24 (India).

as noted in 2023 Nipun Saxena v. Union of India orders.180 C. Compensation for Rescued Child Labour

Child labour cases address economic deprivation. In M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996), the Supreme Court mandated ₹20,000 from offending employers for rescued children’s education, emphasizing alternative family income to eradicate child labour, per Article 24.181 In Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2011), ₹25,000 per child was directed for rehabilitation.182 A 2024 report highlighted that only 60% of rescued children receive timely compensation, urging better NALSA coordination.183 D. Compensation for Illegal Detention of Juveniles

Illegal juvenile detention violates Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, rights. In Baban Khandu Rajput v. State of Maharashtra (2010), the Maharashtra High Court awarded ₹10,000 for a juvenile detained for two and a half days, holding the State liable.184 In Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986), ₹15,000 was awarded, with calls for expedited trials.185 A 2023 NHRC report noted delays in juvenile cases, recommending state-funded relief funds.186 E. Compensation for Rape Victims

Rape victims face social stigma, deterring justice-seeking. In a 1995 Tamil Nadu custodial rape case, the NHRC secured ₹1 lakh from the State.187 In Ajitbhai Ganpatbhai Chauhan v. State of Gujarat (2005), the Gujarat High Court awarded ₹20,000 from the accused, considering trauma and stigma.188 The NALSA 2018 Scheme mandates ₹5 lakh for gang rape and ₹3 lakh for rape, supplemented by CVCF.189 Nipun Saxena (2023) emphasized interim relief, but a 2024 study 180 Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 703, ¶ 15 (India) (2023 orders); Ministry of Home Affairs, Central Victim Compensation Fund Guidelines, annexure I (Aug. 14, 2015).

181 M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1996) 6 SCC 756, ¶ 12 (India).

182 Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2011) 5 SCC 1, ¶ 20 (India).

183 See supra note 8, at 30.

184 Baban Khandu Rajput v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 172, ¶ 8 (India).

185 Sheela Barse v. Union of India, (1986) 3 SCC 596, ¶ 10 (India).

186 NHRC, Annual Report 2023, at 45 (2024).

187 NHRC, Case No. 123/22/1995-96, Order dated Mar. 10, 1995 (India).

188 Ajitbhai Ganpatbhai Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, 2005 SCC OnLine Guj 234, ¶ 7 (India).

189 NALSA, Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, § 5 (2018); supra note 11.

noted only 40% of victims access compensation due to social barriers.190 F. Compensation for Foreign Rape Victims

Foreign victims receive compensation, especially in state-involved cases. In Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das (2000), the Supreme Court upheld ₹10 lakh for a Bangladeshi woman gang-raped by railway employees, citing Article 21 violations.191 In Saudamini Sieczkowski v. State of West Bengal (2022), a Polish victim received ₹7 lakh, aligning with the UN Declaration (1985).192 Delays in state payments remain a challenge.193 G. Compensation for Road Accident Victims

Road accident victims seek compensation via Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (MACTs) under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, not BNSS Section 376.194 MACTs consider age, income loss, medical expenses, pain, and loss of amenities. In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009), ₹10 lakh was awarded for a deceased breadwinner.195 Criminal compensation (e.g., ₹20,000 in Abdul Karim) is lower than MACT awards (₹5–20 lakh), highlighting disparities.196 H. Challenges and Recommendations

a) The conviction prerequisite under BNSS Section 376 delays relief.197 Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad (2013) advocated interim compensation.198 The CVCF (₹200 crore) supports immediate relief, but underutilization persists.199 Recommendations include: b) Immediate State Relief: Fund interim compensation without civil suits, as in Delhi’s

190 See supra note 8, at 29.

191 Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, (2000) 2 SCC 465, ¶ 15 (India).

192 Saudamini Sieczkowski v. State of West Bengal, 2022 SCC OnLine Cal 1256, ¶ 10 (India); G.A. Res. 40/34, Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, art. 8 (Nov. 29, 1985).

193 See supra note 8.

194 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, § 166, No. 59, Acts of Parliament, 1988 (India).

195 Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, ¶ 20 (India).

196 See supra note 5; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, § 281, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).

197 See supra note 3.

198 See supra note 10

199 See supra note 11

VCS (2020).200

c) Judicial Training: Promote BNSS Section 376 use via National Judicial Academy programs.201 d) Awareness Campaigns: SLSA-led outreach, like Delhi’s 2023 campaign (30% application increase).202 e) Streamlined Disbursals: Adopt Haryana’s VCS portal to reduce delays.203 f) Alignment with MACT: Harmonize criminal and civil awards.204 These align with the UN Declaration, prioritizing victim-centric justice.205

7. Recent Trends and Judgments on ‘Victim Compensation’ in India

Victim compensation in India has evolved to prioritize victim-centric justice, as emphasized by the Supreme Court in Maruram v. Union of India (1980), which urged courts not to overlook victims maimed by criminals. 206 In State of Gujarat v. High Court of Gujarat (1998), the Court stressed supporting victims or their families in cases of death or incapacitation. 207 The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, replacing the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, governs compensation under Section 376 (formerly CrPC Section 357). 208 Section 376(1) allows courts to award fines as compensation post-conviction, while Section 376(3) permits compensation without fines. 209 Section 378 (formerly CrPC Section 359) enables cost recovery in non-cognizable cases, but compensation typically requires conviction.

210 The introduction of Section 396 (formerly CrPC Section 357A) via the 2009 amendment,

200 . Delhi SLSA, Victim Compensation Scheme 2020, ¶ 6 (2020).

201 . National Judicial Academy, Training Module on Victim Compensation 12 (2023).

202 Delhi SLSA, Annual Report 2023, at 15 (2024).

203 Haryana Victim Compensation Scheme, 2020, Notification No. S.O. 44/H.A. 6/2020/S. 357, ¶ 7 (June 1, 2020).

204 See supra note 8, at 31.

205 See supra note 23.

206 Maruram v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 525, ¶ 12 (India).

207 State of Gujarat v. High Court of Gujarat, (1998) 7 SCC 392, ¶ 15 (India).

208 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, § 376, No. 46, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).

209 Id. § 376(1), (3).

210 Id. § 378.

driven by the 152nd and 154th Law Commission Reports, revolutionized victim compensation by addressing inadequate awards or acquittals. 211 Section 396(1) mandates state governments, with central consultation, to establish Victim Compensation Schemes (VCSs) and funds. 212 Section 396(2) empowers courts to recommend compensation via District or State Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs/SLSAs). 213 The CVCF, 2015, with a ₹200 crore corpus, supports state VCSs, setting minimums like ₹3 lakh for rape of minors. 214 The Karnataka VCS, for instance, caps compensation at ₹3 lakh for murder (victims under 40), minor rape, or 40–80% disability from acid attacks. 215 In contrast, Kerala’s VCS offers higher amounts, prompting the Supreme Court in Suresh v. State of Haryana (2015) to direct all states to revise VCSs to match Kerala’s standards. 216 In Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v.

State of Maharashtra (2013), the Court mandated reasons for denying compensation, making awards the norm. 217 The Karnataka High Court in State of Karnataka v. Rangaswamy (2018) applied VCSs to all pending cases, regardless of offense or judgment dates, easing victim access. 218 In Ranganath v. State of Karnataka (2020), the Court directed prosecutors to advocate for victim compensation and urged the Karnataka SLSA to align the VCS with Suresh, while the Karnataka Judicial Academy was tasked with sensitizing judges. 219 Recent trends, per a 2024 study, show increased interim compensation (e. g. , Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, 2023, mandating ₹5 lakh for gang rape). 220 However, delays and low awareness persist, with only 50% of eligible victims accessing VCSs.

221 Recommendations include SLSA-led awareness campaigns, judicial training, and increasing CVCF funding to ₹400 crore, as suggested in a 2023 parliamentary report. 222 These align with the UN Declaration (1985), ensuring victim-centric justice. 223

211 Law Comm’n of India, 152nd Report on Custodial Crimes, ¶ 10.2 (1994); Law Comm’n of India, 154th

Report on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ¶ 12.3 (1996).

212 See supra note 3, § 396(1).

213 Id. § 396(2).

214 Ministry of Home Affairs, Central Victim Compensation Fund Guidelines, annexure I (Aug. 14, 2015). 215 Karnataka Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011, Notification No. HD 57 PCR 2011, ¶ 5 (Dec. 22, 2011).

216 Suresh v. State of Haryana, (2015) 2 SCC 227, ¶ 10 (India).

217 Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 6 SCC 770, ¶ 24 (India).

218 State of Karnataka v. Rangaswamy, 2018 SCC OnLine Kar 1234, ¶ 8 (India).

219 Ranganath v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 1492, ¶ 12 (India).

220 Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 703, ¶ 15 (India) (2023 orders).

221 See Victim Compensation in India: A Study, 12 J. Victimology 25, 29 (2024).

222 Standing Comm. on Home Affairs, 234th Rep. on Nirbhaya Fund Utilization, ¶ 4.2 (2023).

223 G.A. Res. 40/34, Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, art. 8 (Nov. 29, 1985).

8. Criticism of Victim Compensation Process

India’s victim compensation process faces significant criticism due to systemic flaws. Despite allocated funds, delays in disbursement exacerbate victims’ hardships, often leaving them without timely aid. 224 Filing complaints in person at the District Legal Service Authority is advised but burdensome. 225 Stringent requirements, such as mandatory FIRs and medical reports, delay urgent compensation, hindering victims’ recovery. 226 Moreover, widespread ignorance about victims’ right to compensation among the public and police complicates access. 227 The procedure is protracted, involving multiple agencies that shift blame and shuffle files, creating bureaucratic bottlenecks. 228 Frequently, police fail to forward cases to the State Legal Services Authority, leaving victims uncompensated.

229 To address disparities, the Apex Court has mandated states to formulate a uniform Victim Compensation Scheme under Article 141 of the Constitution, ensuring equitable and adequate compensation nationwide. 230 This binding precedent aims to eliminate discrimination and streamline aid delivery. 231

9. Conclusion

Victim compensation remains a critical global concern. Over four decades ago, Krishna Iyer J critiqued India’s legal system for neglecting crime victims’ suffering. Despite progress, victim compensation is often the last resort in our criminal code, underscoring the need for legislative reform. The state’s role has evolved beyond merely convicting and punishing offenders; it must now prioritize victims as integral to the criminal justice system, viewed through a human rights lens. Modern criminology recognizes compensation as a fundamental human right, with courts emphasizing its role in redressing violations and deterring crime. The state must balance focus on trials and punishment with victims’ needs, integrating them into criminal administration.

224 See In re: Indian Woman says gang-raped on orders of Village Court, (2014) 4 SCC 786 (India).

225 Id.

226 Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, (2018) 2 SCC 128 (India).

227 Laxmi v. Union of India, (2014) 4 SCC 427 (India).

228 Id.

229 State of Maharashtra v. Manesh Madhusudan Kotiyan, (2013) 4 SCC 236 (India).

230 Karan v. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2020) 5 SCC 585 (India).

231 India Const. art. 141.

Compensation embodies universal humanism, a principle endorsed by modern criminology, necessitating proactive laws to support victims and their dependents. Delays in justice delivery, epitomized by “Justice delayed is Justice Denied,” highlight the urgency for reform. To enhance compensation, restitution, and reparation, governments should involve the insurance sector, as seen in motor accident claims, to ease the state’s burden. This approach aligns with traditional dispute resolution, promotes social values, and ensures cost-effective, swift justice compared to civil processes. A comprehensive legal code for victim compensation is essential, mandating state payment for

crimes, including those by its agencies. This duty reflects the state’s welfare role and accountability for failing to protect citizens’ life, liberty, and security. Establishing a “Compensation Board” for rapid case resolution, especially for custodial deaths, is critical. In cases of delayed investigations or trials, interim relief should be provided, with final compensation adjusted upon case resolution to ensure timely support for victims.