VICTIM COMPENSATION SCHEME

AUTHOR – YAJAT PITHADIA & VEER DESHPANDE

STUDENTS AT UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI THANE SUB CAMPUS

BEST CITATION – YAJAT PITHADIA & VEER DESHPANDE, VICTIM  COMPENSATION SCHEME, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 5 (12) OF 2025, PG. 794-804, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344

Introduction

The criminal justice system, being a social construct of human organization, was created with two main goals in mind: the protection of the citizens and the rehabilitation of offenders. It is functioning by way of a sequence of stages—from victimization and inquiry to arrest, prosecution, and finally the, sanction—the system is premised on the collaborative involvement of different institutions, the most significant being law enforcement, the judiciary, and penal institutions. Its very effectiveness depends largely on the fine balancing act between the rights, roles, and duties of all the stakeholders involved.

For crime victims, however, justice goes beyond the punishment of the offender. Crime tends to cause physical, emotional, psychological, and economic injury, as well as what is known to as “secondary victimization”1, which is the insensitivity or neglect they can encounter when in contact with state agencies. These problems need to be addressed by an immediate and sympathetic response from police, prosecutors, the courts, correctional institutions, and involved agencies. A co-ordinated and victim-centred response ensures the provision of help from the time an offense is reported in order to ensure recovery and uphold the dignity and rights of victims. In record of these facts, a major legislative improvement came with the enactment of Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which made it necessary for state governments to set up Victim Compensation Schemes (VCS). These programmes, which are State-funded, aim to extend financial aid to victims who need rehabilitation, thus institutionalizing the role of the state towards the victims of crime.

The legislation structure was further strengthened under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, wherein Section 2(1)(y) of the Act widened the scope of the term “victim” to not only cover direct victims but also their legal heirs, guardians, and persons wrongfully prosecuted or imprisoned.

A judicial precedent, particularly in Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981)2 and Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra (2013)3, have uniformly emphasized that although compensation cannot obliterate victim agony, it provides some degree of justice, consolation, and dignity, especially in grievous harm, humiliation, or death. This judicial approach confirms to the constitutional spirit expressed in Article 41, which emphasizes State’s duty to render assistance in times of need, and Article 51A, which mandates citizens to instil compassion.

Collectively, all these changes represent a paradigm shift in Indian criminal law, moving increasingly toward a victim-centered system of justice that combines rehabilitation with retribution.