Rebuilding Lives: Legal Provisions And Policies For Victim Rehabilitation

Monika Thakur

Introduction

Think of someone—let’s call her Sonia—who has been through the trauma of a crime: the shock, the loss, the sudden rearrangement of life’s path. Now imagine the legal system stepping in not just to punish the wrong-doer, but to say: “We must help you rebuild.” That’s the shift behind what we’re talking about: a move from seeing victims merely as witnesses or casualties, to treating them as central players who need recognition, support, compensation, and rehabilitation. However—real life complicates this ideal. For example, an acid-attack survivor in a small town might technically be eligible for state compensation, yet bureaucratic delays, little local infrastructure, and minimal psychological counselling mean the help never quite arrives. On the other hand, someone in a big city with good access to legal aid might fare better—but still face lifelong scars. So when we look at laws, policies and schemes, it’s not enough to list them. We must ask: do they really restore dignity, enable return to everyday life, reduce hardship? In the pages that follow I’ll guide you through three inter-linked layers: first, what “victimology” means (to ground our thinking); second, the legal and compensatory frameworks in India; and third, how support and rehabilitation actually play out (including the role of emerging technologies). Along the way, I’ll flag where the system works, where it falters, and why it matters for building lives after harm.

Definition of Victimology

Victimology is “the scientific study of victimisation, including the relationships between victims and offenders, the interactions between victims and the criminal justice system … and the connection between victims and other social groups and institutions.” In the Indian context, scholars highlight that the victim has historically been the “forgotten” party in criminal justice: the State prosecutes, the offender is tried, but the victim may vanish into the process.

Scope and Significance in Criminal Justice

• It changes perspective: instead of only “who did this and how to punish them”, we ask “what happened to the person harmed, how can they be supported, what prevented them from protection?”.
• It acknowledges the victim’s experience: physical injury, psychological trauma, financial loss, social stigma—all of which may last long after the criminal case ends.
• It influences policy: compensation schemes, victim support services, restorative justice practices—all rely on the idea that victims are active stakeholders.
• It helps in prevention: by studying patterns of victimisation, we may identify risk factors, vulnerable populations, and thus craft preventive strategies. The shift from purely offender-centric to more balanced is significant. At the same time, we must remember the scope is bounded: victimology doesn’t replace criminal procedure—it complements it. It doesn’t absolve offenders or let victims override due process. It simply brings a fuller picture.

Key Theories in Victimology

Victim Precipitation Theory

This theory suggests that in some crimes, the victim may have initiated or contributed to the criminal act—intentionally or unintentionally. The classic example: imagine two people arguing late at night, one proposes a fight, the other refuses, but continues to provoke. If a murder happens, some theorists might say the victim precipitated it. While controversial (because it risks blaming the victim), the idea is about the dynamic between victim and offender. In India, consider a scenario where a theft victim leaves valuables visible in a car overnight in a high-crime area. Some might argue the victim’s behaviour increased risk—but the offender still chose to commit the crime. The nuance: we recognise risk factors without shifting full blame to victims.

Lifestyle Theory

This one argues that victims who have certain lifestyles or expose themselves to risk more often (for instance late night outings, heavy drinking, unprotected neighborhoods’) will face higher chance of victimisation. A concrete example: someone going home late after a party frequently, walking alone on poorly lit streets, may have higher risk of assault. In criminal justice policy this suggests targeting those high-risk lifestyles—not to blame victims, but to design preventive education, safer environments, alerts.

Deviant Place Theory

Deviant Place Theory picks up geographic or environmental risk: certain places have higher crime rates (poor lighting, neglected urban spaces, high density, low social cohesion). If you spend time in those “deviant places”, the risk of being a victim rises. Example: wandering into a red-light area, or a deserted railway siding at night.

So this theory helps shift focus on place-based interventions: improving urban lighting, policing, community watch, rather than only individual behaviour.

Routine Activity Theory

This is perhaps the most widely used in victimology and criminology. It posits that for a crime to occur you need three elements: (1) a motivated offender, (2) a suitable target, (3) absence of a capable guardian. If routine activity places you in situations where these align, you’re at higher risk. Example: leaving your bike unlocked in a poorly surveilled parking area at night (suitable target +  motivated offender + no guardian) leads to theft.

In victim context: someone walking alone through a dim alley at midnight, carrying visible cash, has high risk because the “guardian” (police presence, community watch, lit street) is absent. So policy wise: enhance guardianship (lighting, CCTV, patrols), reduce opportunities.

Together, these theories show victimisation is not random: individual, environmental, societal factors combine. Importantly, they do not mean the victim is to blame—rather they help us understand why some people are more vulnerable and how systems can intervene.

Legal Provisions and Compensatory Reliefs

In India, there is no one “Victims Act” yet (though reform is in motion), but several legal provisions across statutes provide for victim compensation and support. I’ll cover key ones and then highlight specific schemes.

Key Statutory Provisions

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Through Section 357A (added in the 2008 amendments), States are mandated to prepare Victim Compensation Schemes for persons who have suffered loss or injury and require rehabilitation.
• National Legal Services Authority (NALSA): Under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, NALSA publishes Victim Compensation Schemes (for women victims of sexual assault/other crimes). For example, NALSA’s Compensation Scheme (2018) is available.
• District Legal Services Authority (DLSA): At the district level, DLSAs implement the schemes, receive applications from victims, verify eligibility, and distribute compensation under State Victim Compensation Schemes. Several state schemes are administered via DLSAs.
• Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: While primarily dealing with probation of offenders, this Act also allows courts to release offenders on probation and conditionally direct them to pay restitution or compensation to victims (or their dependents) as part of a probation order. This effectively links offender-responsibility with victim relief.
• Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: This is very significant for road accident victims. Under this Act (Sections such as 140, 163A, 166), there are provisions for no-fault compensation (especially in hit-and-run cases) and fault-based claims for victims of road accidents. While this is technically not “victimology compensation”, in practice it plays a massive role for accident victims.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS 2023): This newer code re-frames Indian criminal law. Section 396 of the BNSS mandates State Governments to formulate a victim compensation scheme and provides for interim compensation even before conviction. Compensation Schemes for Specific Victims

Acid Attack Victims

Victims of acid attacks have distinct needs: reconstructive surgery, psychological counselling, vocational rehabilitation, disfigurement. The central scheme (under the Central Victim Compensation Fund (CVCF) Scheme) prescribes a minimum of Rs 3 lakh for an acid-attack victim. For example: In a recent case, the Kerala High Court ordered the State to pay Rs 3 lakh each to a woman and her four children who suffered an acid attack.

Rape Victims / Sexual Assault

Similarly, victims of rape and other sexual assault crimes are eligible under NALSA’s scheme and state victim compensation schemes. For example, a blog resource flagged compensation of around Rs 4-10 lakh for sexual assault survivors (depending on state). Also, the case of Bilkis Bano (Gujarat riots rape survivor) in which the Supreme Court of India ordered Rs 50 lakh compensation (though under different legal regime) points to judicial willingness.

Case Examples & Judicial Trends

• Several states are yet to uniformly implement timely compensation: The disparity in compensation amounts across states remains a criticism.
• A recent judgement of the Delhi High Court held that the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme could not be applied retrospectively (1984 riot victims claim rejected).
• The acid-attack case cited above (Kerala) shows that courts are enforcing compensation actively—and may order state governments to pay within months.

Critique and Observations

• Although legal frameworks exist, implementation is uneven. Some states have well-functioning DLSAs and awareness campaigns; others lag.
• Compensation often addresses immediate financial loss but less well the long-term rehabilitation (psychological, social reintegration, employment).
• Intersecting vulnerabilities (gender, rural/urban divide, caste) mean victims from marginalized communities often face hurdles in accessing benefits.
• The move from CrPC to BNSS is promising—but transition and clarity of rules, budgets and administrative machinery are still works in progress.

Victim Support and Rehabilitation

Beyond compensation, rebuilding lives means support and rehabilitation—material, psychological, social.

Support Schemes

• The Central Victim Compensation Fund (CVCF) scheme: Victims of crime (including acid attack, rape, minors sexually abused) can access compensation via this central-state mechanism.
• Rehabilitation measures: These include medical treatment, psychological counselling, vocational training, legal aid, and sometimes housing support. For example, certain NGO/State programmes for acid-attack survivors provide vocational classes, community reintegration (see centres like Make Love Not Scars).
• Legal aid via NALSA/DLSA: Free legal services, counselling, assistance in making applications for compensation.
• One-Stop Centres & helplines (especially for women victims) under Nirbhaya Fund: immediate support, shelter, linking with necessary services.

Use of AI‐based Tools in Supporting Victims

Technology and AI are increasingly part of victim support. For instance:

• Chatbots or virtual assistants helping victims to know their rights, guide through forms, respond in multiple languages.
• AI-driven platforms for trauma-informed counselling, natural-language processing to detect distress in helpline chats, or predictive modelling to prioritise high-risk cases.
• Digital dashboards for tracking compensation claims, alerting victims to delays, streamlining DLSA/SLSA workflow.

Ethical concerns:

• Privacy and data security: Victim data is highly sensitive. AI platforms must protect confidentiality.
• Bias and fairness: Algorithms may inadvertently prioritise some victims (urban, literate) over others (rural, less educated).
• Automation vs human empathy: Technology can help—but can’t replace personal counselling, emotional support and human-touch needed for trauma survivors.
• Digital divide: Many victims (in rural India, with limited digital literacy) may be excluded if platforms rely heavily on tech.

Real-World Impact and Rehabilitative Measures
Consider some real examples:

• A woman acid-attacked in Aligarh at 16-years-old only got compensation 23 years later, after advocacy and renewed FIR.
• A district initiative in Pratapgarh launched a rehabilitation scheme (“Mission Pankh”) for child victims of sexual offences: re-enrolment in school, counselling, linking to compensation.

These illustrate that when rehabilitation is linked with education, vocational training and social reintegration, the impact is amplified. The objective is not just “give compensation and move on” but to help a victim rebuild self-worth, livelihood, community participation.

But again: many victims slip through cracks because their trauma isn’t just financial—it’s relational (fear, stigma, isolation). Rehabilitation must consider psychological, social, economic dimensions.

Analytical Depth and Originality

Relationship Between Victims and Offenders

Often we think of victims and offenders as entirely separate actors—but in reality the relationship can be complex. For instance:

• Some offences (especially domestic violence, assault) occur within relational contexts: family, intimate partners, acquaintances. The victim might still share social networks with the offender post-crime (child of offender, same community).
• Offender behaviour might be shaped by victim behaviour (though not justified) or situational contexts where victim and offender routines intersect (e.g., routine activity theory).
• The justice process itself reflects this relationship: victims may face pressure from offender’s family/community, may turn hostile, may choose reconciliation (especially in

India context) which complicates compensation and rehabilitation. Therefore, rehabilitation policies need to recognise the dynamic: the victim is not always wholly separate; offenders may be known, may return to community, may create continuing threat or need for support.

Technology and Digital Platforms in Victim Support

Technology can bridge some gaps in the victim support ecosystem—but only if used thoughtfully. A few insights:

• A digital claims-tracking portal linked to FIR registration can alert victims about the status of compensation, reducing anxiety and backlog.
• AI-powered multilingual helplines can reach victims who speak regional languages, or are in remote areas.
• Virtual reality or AI-based therapy modules can assist trauma counselling when human counsellors aren’t available—but these must be adjuncts, not replacements.
• Blockchain or secure cloud systems could safeguard victim data, give victims control over access, and ensure transparency of fund disbursement.

However: we must guard against over-reliance on tech. Victims may mistrust digital forms, may lack access to internet, may need human empathy rather than automated responses. Also: algorithmic bias could privilege urban, more educated victims. We need hybrid models: tech + human support, with intentional inclusive design.

Critical Observations

• The shift in India from offender-centric to victim-inclusive justice is happening—but uneven. Policy exists, but “on-ground” realities vary widely (urban vs rural, state-to-state).
• Compensation is often the “visible” part of victim support—but rehabilitation (skills, mental health, reintegration) is the less-visible but more-enduring part. Too many schemes treat compensation like a cheque and stop there.
• Victimology as a field reminds us that victimisation is neither random nor only about offenders—it’s about social structures, lifestyles, environment, state capacity. So policy must be multi-layered.
• The concept of “victim” is itself evolving: from only those physically injured, to emotional injury, financial injury, human-rights violations. The law needs to keep up.
• Importantly: victims themselves often become agents of change—survivors who advocate, mentor, run NGOs. Their voices must be integrated into policy-design.
• Finally: the idea of “rebuilding lives” is long-term. It’s not just months of support; it’s years of societal reintegration. Schemes must be designed with that horizon.

Conclusion

At the end of the day, rebuilding lives after crime is neither swift nor simple. We’ve seen that victimology gives us a lens to understand who the victim is, why some people become victims, and how the justice system and society respond. We’ve navigated legal provisions—compensation under various Acts, schemes targeted at acid-attack or rape survivors—and explored support and rehabilitation mechanisms, including the promise and peril of AI-based tools. Yet this is not a story of neatly solved problems. The gap between law on paper and lived reality remains wide. Implementation lags, awareness is patchy, and many victims still feel invisible in the system. The relationship between victim and offender is complex—sometimes entangled, sometimes indirect—and so our responses must be equally nuanced. Technology and digital platforms can help, certainly—but they must be deployed in ways that protect privacy, respect dignity, avoid bias and don’t replace human empathy. So: the path forward is this. Laws matter. Schemes matter. But the real measure is whether a person who suffered feels genuinely seen, supported, empowered to move on. If our systems can make that happen more consistently—then we are truly rebuilding lives, not just ticking boxes.