Introduction
Victimology, a crucial branch of criminology, focuses on the experiences of victims, their interaction with offenders, and the functioning of the criminal justice system in addressing their suffering. It studies the causes, patterns, and consequences of victimisation and seeks to
restore victims through legal, psychological, and social support. In India, the recognition of victims’ rights is deeply embedded within the constitutional guarantee of life and liberty under Article 21, ensuring fairness, justice, and human dignity. Over time, courts have broadened this right to include restitution and compensation for victims of crime. Thus, victimology has evolved from being a peripheral area of study to a central element of criminal jurisprudence.
Concept, Scope and Importance of Victimology
Victimology may be defined as the scientific study of victims of crime, encompassing their role in the occurrence of crime, their treatment within the criminal justice process, and the mechanisms available for redress and rehabilitation. Its scope extends to examining vulnerable groups, the socio-economic conditions contributing to victimisation, and the state’s responsibility in ensuring justice and support. The significance of victimology lies in humanising the criminal process by balancing attention between the offender’s rights and the victim’s suffering.
The Indian judiciary has played a pivotal role in emphasising the importance of victimology. In Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 6 SCC 770, the Supreme Court held that compensation to victims under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is not merely discretionary but a mandatory aspect of fair justice. The Court observed that a criminal trial cannot be considered complete unless adequate compensation is granted to the victim. Similarly, in Hari Krishna v. Sukhbir Singh (1988) 4 SCC 551, the Supreme Court urged courts to exercise their powers to award compensation liberally, ensuring justice beyond mere punishment.
Theoretical Foundations of Victimology
Victimology contains several influential theories that explain patterns of victimisation. Below are four core theories with simple examples.
Victim Precipitation Theory
This theory suggests some victims may play an active (direct or indirect) role in precipitating their victimisation not blaming victims, but recognizing interactions that raise risk. Example: Two people get into a heated argument in a bar; one participant escalates the conflict physically and is then assaulted. Victim precipitation theory would examine how the victim’s conduct or choices contributed to the event’s escalation.
Lifestyle Theory
Argues that certain lifestyles increase exposure to risky situations and potential offenders. Factors include time spent in public at night, association with high-risk peers, substance use, or occupations with lone work. Example: Delivery workers who travel late at night through unsafe neighborhoods may face higher risk of robbery than office workers who commute in secure conditions.
Deviant Place Theory
Posits that victims are more likely to be in places where crimes are more probable (high crime locations), irrespective of their individual behaviour. Example: A resident or visitor in a neighborhood with poor street lighting and weak policing is more likely to be targeted, even if they engage in no risky behaviour. Lastly, the Routine Activity Theory, developed by Cohen and Felson (1979), argues that crime occurs when three elements coincide: a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of capable guardianship. Prevention thus lies in disrupting this convergence through surveillance, community vigilance, and law enforcement. In India, this theory found judicial support in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020 SCC OnLine SC 887), where the Supreme Court directed the installation of CCTV cameras in police stations to ensure transparency and protection of victims during investigations.
Legal Framework and Compensatory Mechanisms for Victims
The Indian criminal justice system contains several provisions that address the rights and rehabilitation of victims. The cornerstone of this framework is found in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which under Sections 357(1) and (3) empowers courts to award compensation to victims out of fines imposed upon offenders. More significantly, Section 357A, inserted through the 2008 amendment, mandates every State Government, in coordination with the Central Government, to prepare a Victim Compensation Scheme (VCS) for providing financial relief to victims or their dependents who have suffered loss or injury. Judicial activism has reinforced these provisions. In Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad, the Court interpreted compensation as an integral part of justice. Similarly, in Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam (2018) 13 SCC 289, it was held that the criminal process must consider both the accused and the victim, marking a significant step towards balanced justice. With the introduction of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, Section 396 now explicitly incorporates victim compensation in India’s reformed procedural code. The BNSS retains the spirit of Section 357A of the CrPC but modernises its application by providing for a central and state-level fund to ensure timely disbursal of compensation and uniformity across jurisdictions.
The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and its subsidiary bodies—the State Legal Services Authorities (SLSAs) and District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs)—play a critical role in implementing compensation schemes and ensuring access to justice. NALSA’s 2018 model scheme provides comprehensive guidelines for compensating victims of sexual assault, acid attacks, and other heinous crimes. In Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2019) 2 SCC 703, the Supreme Court directed that victims of sexual violence must receive immediate financial assistance and psychological counselling through the DLSA, reinforcing institutional responsibility.
Other legislative mechanisms supplement this framework. Under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, Section 5 allows courts to direct offenders released on probation to pay compensation to victims, thereby integrating restorative justice with reformative punishment. Similarly, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as amended in 2019) expanded the scope of compensation for accident victims and introduced simpler claim processes through the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs). The Supreme Court in K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. (2012) 12 SCC 274 held that compensation must be “just, fair and reasonable,” setting a precedent for humane assessment.
Certain victims (acid attack survivors, sexual assault victims) receive special schemes or additional financial assistance under Central/State guidelines (e.g., additional grants for acid attack treatment under Central Victim Compensation Fund guidelines). Recent judicial trends have underscored courts’ willingness to order district authorities or direct DLSAs to ensure speedy compensation awards.
Furthermore, the constitutional foundation for victim compensation lies in Articles 21 and 39 A, guaranteeing the right to life with dignity and free legal aid. Together, these provisions create a robust legal ecosystem recognising the victim as a central figure in the justice
process rather than a passive participant.
Victim Support and Rehabilitation
Compensation alone cannot restore the psychological, physical, and social harm caused by crime. Victim support therefore includes counselling, medical care, shelter, education, and employment opportunities. The Central Victim Compensation Fund (CVCF), created by the Ministry of Home Affairs, provides financial support to states to ensure uniform relief standards. Many states have also established One-Stop Centres for women victims, providing integrated legal, medical, and psychological assistance.
In Laxmi v. Union of India (2014) 4 SCC 427, the Supreme Court directed that acid attack survivors should receive a minimum compensation of ₹3 lakh along with free medical treatment, underscoring the state’s duty to rehabilitate victims. Similarly, in Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India (1995) 1 SCC 14, the Court emphasised the need for victim counselling, legal representation, and confidentiality during trials of sexual assault cases.
Rehabilitation also involves long-term measures, such as skill development and livelihood programs. The judgment in Parivartan Kendra v. Union of India (2016) 3 SCC 571 reiterated that rehabilitation is not a charity but a right inherent to Article 21, making the state accountable for victims’ social reintegration.
Use of Artificial Intelligence and Ethical Considerations
With rapid digitisation, artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a tool to strengthen victim support. AI-driven chatbots, predictive policing software, and online legal-aid platforms facilitate quicker reporting, case tracking, and resource access. However, such use must be tempered with ethical safeguards. The collection and processing of sensitive victim data risk privacy breaches and misuse. Moreover, algorithmic bias may perpetuate discrimination if unchecked.
Hence, while technology can aid efficiency, it must operate under the principles of transparency, accountability, and informed consent. In cases involving sexual offences, confidentiality under Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act, 2012 must remain paramount. Technology, therefore, should complement human compassion, not replace it.
Victim–Offender Relationship and Restorative Justice
Understanding the relationship between victims and offenders is central to modern criminal justice. In cases of domestic violence, sexual assault, or child abuse, this relationship often determines the type of intervention required. Restorative justice a concept gaining traction worldwide seeks to repair harm by involving victims, offenders, and communities in reconciliation processes. This approach emphasises accountability and healing rather than vengeance.
In State of Gujarat v. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat (1998) 7 SCC 392, the Supreme Court acknowledged the value of restorative justice in juvenile cases, advocating reform and reintegration over retribution. Likewise, mediation in compoundable offences, as seen in Karan v. State of NCT of Delhi (2023), allows for reconciliation while ensuring the victim’s consent and dignity remain protected.
Judicial Trends and Case Developments
Indian jurisprudence increasingly recognises victims as active participants in criminal proceedings. Courts now issue suo motu directions to ensure compensation, as seen in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad and Reena Hazarika. In Rajesh Tyagi v. Jaibir Singh (2018 SCC OnLine Del 1961), the Delhi High Court introduced structured formulas for motor accident compensation to ensure uniformity and efficiency. Similarly, in Nipun Saxena, the Court directed the media to protect victims’ identities and mandated speedy disbursal of compensation through DLSAs. In recent years, Lok Adalats and mediation centres have also contributed to quicker victim relief, especially in accident and family disputes. These judicial trends demonstrate a steady evolution from a retributive to a restorative and victim-centric justice model.
Analytical Insights
Victimology bridges criminology, sociology, and human rights law, establishing that justice cannot be truly served without addressing the victim’s suffering. India’s constitutional and judicial approach reflects a shift toward empathetic, inclusive justice. However, challenges persist: delays in compensation, lack of awareness, and inconsistent implementation of schemes across states. The ethical use of technology and improved inter-agency coordination remain crucial for progress. Ultimately, victimology reaffirms that the goal of criminal law is
not merely punishment but restoration ensuring that victims regain dignity, confidence, and participation in society.
Conclusion
Victimology has transformed the landscape of criminal justice by placing the victim at its centre. The development of legal frameworks such as Section 357A of the CrPC, Section 396 of the BNSS, and NALSA compensation schemes, coupled with progressive judicial interpretation, reflects India’s growing commitment to restorative justice. Landmark judgments from Hari Krishna to Nipun Saxena and Laxmi have elevated victim rights from moral consideration to constitutional entitlement. As technology and legal reform advance, the emphasis must remain on empathy, fairness, and accountability. Only through this balanced approach can the criminal justice system uphold its ultimate purpose justice for all.
Author Bio
