Victim Compensation Scheme
Introduction
Section 396 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS) contains the Victim
Compensation Scheme. An important advancement in India's criminal justice system was made
in 2009 when the same was included in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). This
program recognises that victims of crime frequently experience severe emotional and financial
hardships, making state assistance necessary for their rehabilitation. The clause signals a change
in the criminal justice system from a solely punitive one to one that is more victim-centric and
places an emphasis on reparation and restoration.
Provisions of the Law
A victim is defined as any individual who has experienced any loss or harm as a result of the
accused person's act or omission under BNSS for Victims Section 2 (1) (y), including the
victim's guardian or legal heir.
Section 396: Compensation Plan for Victims Previously, Section 357 A of the CrPC addressed
this section. Each state government must work with the federal government to create a plan for
compensating victims or their dependents who have been harmed or lost anything as a result of
criminal activity and need rehabilitation.
Important Elements: Funds for the program will be provided by the State Government. The
amount of compensation will be determined by the State or District Legal Service Authorities.
Even if the criminal cannot be located or recognised, compensation may still be given. The State
or District Legal Service Authority may receive a claim for compensation from the victim or
their dependents.
Process of Implementation: Under the plan, the trial court may suggest compensation. Within
two months, allegations must be verified by the Legal Services Authority. Benefits for
immediate medical attention or first aid must be given without charge. At any point, the
Authority has the right to mandate emergency medical assistance or first-aid facilities. In
addition to the victim's fine under sections 65, 70, and sub-section (1) of section 124 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the State Government is also required to pay the compensation
under this section. This guarantees that victims of gang rape and acid attacks receive more
assistance than just any fines imposed by the court. Section 357 B of the CrPC previously
addressed this section's subsection (7).
Section 397: Victims' Treatment
Any victim of an offence covered by section 64, section 65, section 66, section 67, section 68,
section 70, section 71, or sub-section (1) of section 124 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, or
by sections 4, 6, 8, or 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, must
receive first aid or medical treatment immediately and without charge from all hospitals, whether
public or private. They must also notify the police of such incidents right away. provision 357C
of the CrPC previously addressed this provision.
Section 413: Unless otherwise specified, no appeal to lie No appeal from a criminal court's
judgement or order may be filed unless specifically permitted by his Sanhita or by another
currently enacted law; however, the victim may file an appeal against any court order that clears
the accused, convicts them of a lesser crime, or imposes insufficient compensation. This appeal
will be filed with the court that typically hears appeals against the court's conviction order.
Former CrPC Section 357A: This law, which was introduced in 2009, requires states to set up
victim compensation funds (VCS) that are maintained by the state and cover situations beyond
the offender culpability, such as interim remedy. In Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, ₹35,000 was
awarded for unlawful detention through one habeas corpus petition. This case further influenced
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, where the Supreme Court of India upheld the principle of
public law compensation for custodial deaths under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Constitutional Remedies: The Supreme Court, under Article 32, and High Courts, under Article
226 have awarded compensation for violations of fundamental rights, particularly Article 21.
Case Laws and Important Decisions
In India, victim compensation has been greatly influenced by judicial activism:
● In Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court established its authority under
Article 32 to grant monetary remedies for violations of Article 21 after a habeas corpus
case resulted in ₹35,000 compensation for 14 years of unlawful confinement.
● In Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum v. Union of India, rape victims were
required to get compensation, underscoring the necessity for systematic support.
● Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra: Invoked a victim-centric approach
and emphasised the obligation of courts to take compensation into account in every
criminal case.
● States were prompted to align VCS with the minimum compensation of ₹3 lakh for
survivors of acid attacks by the ruling in Laxmi v. Union of India.
● The case of Tekan v. State of Chhattisgarh called for a uniform program, ordered
lifetime monthly payments of ₹8,000, and criticised the non-uniform compensation
(₹20,000 to ₹10 lakh) for rape.
● The case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India expanded the scope of compensation under
Article 32 for mass disasters such as the Delhi Oleum Gas Leak and established absolute
liability for hazardous businesses.
Conclusion
An important development in victim justice and assistance in India is the Victim Compensation
Scheme. It recognises the state's obligation to victims of crime and offers a methodical
framework for their rehabilitation and restitution. Effective implementation, sufficient money,
and stakeholder knowledge are all necessary for the system to succeed. The program offers a
crucial safety net for victims of crime and their families, despite ongoing issues with consistency
across states and timely payout.
