The judiciary is crucial for justice, extending beyond punishment to include compensating crime victims. This compensation provides redress for harm, restores dignity, and offers financial support for rehabilitation. This vital role is recognized globally, with courts actively working to ensure victims receive compensation.

The term "victim" refers to any individual, group, or entity that has experienced harm, injury, or loss due to the unlawful actions of others. This harm can manifest in various forms, impacting a person's mental, physical, and economic well-being. The consequences of victimization can be profound and long-lasting, affecting multiple aspects of a person's life. In this discussion, we will explore the concept of victim compensation as a potential means to alleviate the challenges faced by victims, while recognizing that financial reparations can never fully erase the pain and suffering endured.

The Indian judiciary has actively shaped a strong system for victim compensation. It has broadened the interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, to include the state's duty to compensate crime victims. This aligns with global standards, such as the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power (1985), which also highlights the significance of restitution and compensation for those harmed.

Compensation for victims can serve as a vital stepping stone toward rebuilding their lives. While it may not be able to restore their previous quality of life, it can provide critical support to help them begin anew. Financial compensation can assist victims in accessing necessary resources to address their immediate needs, such as medical care, counselling, and rehabilitation. It can also help cover ongoing expenses, like lost wages and other economic losses resulting from the crime. Ultimately, victim compensation can play a crucial role in promoting healing and resilience, enabling victims to regain their footing and move forward with their lives.

Indian law includes key provisions for victim compensation. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is the primary legal structure outlining how victims can receive compensation. Specifically, Section 395 allows courts to order offenders to pay compensation from the fines they incur. Furthermore, Section 396 requires state governments to implement victim compensation programs. These two sections grant courts significant authority to provide victims with financial assistance. A significant case, Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum v. Union of India (1995), led to the Supreme Court ordering the creation of a compensation process for victims of rape. This ruling highlighted the state's responsibility to offer both financial and emotional support.

In the specific case of acid attacks, for instance, victims are entitled to receive a compensation sum of Rupees 3 lakh in India. This financial assistance aims to provide a measure of relief to the survivors of such horrific crimes. In addition to the physical and emotional scars, acid attack victims often face severe financial burdens due to extensive medical treatment and reconstructive surgeries. The provision of compensation can help alleviate some of these financial pressures, allowing victims to focus on their recovery and rehabilitation.

There are multiple avenues through which compensation can be delivered to victims in India. One such pathway involves compensation from state resources, which can be granted as a result of judicial proceedings or as an ex-gratia payment under the Constitution. Ex-gratia payments are discretionary, typically awarded when the government recognizes a debt of gratitude or obligation to the victim. Compensation from the state can provide a sense of justice and acknowledgment for victims, demonstrating the government's commitment to addressing their needs and concerns.

Another source of compensation for victims in India comes from the offender responsible for the crime. Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) or the Constitution of India, offenders may be required to pay a specific sum to the victim as part of their fine or as a separate allocation. This form of compensation ensures that the offender contributes to the victim's recovery and, in some cases, provides a sense of closure for the victim. Moreover, it serves as a deterrent for potential offenders, signalling the consequences of engaging in harmful and illegal actions.

In summary, victim compensation is a vital component of addressing the needs of individuals, groups, or entities who have suffered harm due to the illegal actions of others. While financial reparations cannot undo the suffering that victims have endured, they can alleviate some of the associated hardships and contribute to the healing process. Through various means, such as state compensation and offender-provided reparations, victims can access the support they need to rebuild their lives and regain their sense of self-worth. By treating victims with care, respect, and truth, while prioritizing utility and positivity, we can foster a more supportive and inclusive society that acknowledges and addresses the needs of those affected by crime.

The judiciary plays a crucial role in ensuring that victims of crime receive compensation for the harm they have suffered. Through various landmark cases, the courts have established principles and mechanisms for awarding such compensation.

Indian courts frequently take a proactive approach when awarding compensation, especially in cases of severe crimes. In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993), the Supreme Court granted compensation to the family of a victim of custodial death, thereby holding the state responsible for violating the victim's right to life. This decision established a key precedent for compensation in cases involving human rights violations.

In the case of Hari Kishan and State of Haryana v. Sukhbir Singh and Others, the court emphasized that compensation must always be reasonable. What constitutes "reasonable" depends entirely on the specific details of each case. To determine the appropriate amount, courts are instructed to consider factors such as the nature of the crime, the victim's legitimate claim, and the financial capacity of the accused to pay.

The Supreme Court, in Balraj Singh v. State of UP, eloquently articulated that the power to award compensation is not just a secondary element to other sentencing options. Rather, it is an additional measure designed to provide redress to the victim. This highlights the judiciary's focus on victim rehabilitation.

Further developing the compensation framework, the Supreme Court introduced the concept of interim compensation in Bodhi Satta Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty. Interim compensation allows for an immediate payment to the injured party from the accused, even before a final settlement of their personal injury claim. It serves as a critical form of financial assistance while the victim's case is ongoing, addressing immediate needs.

A particularly significant judgment came in the case of Saheli v. Commissioner of Police. In this instance, the son of Kamlesh Kumari died due to mistreatment by a Sub-Inspector of the Delhi Police. The Supreme Court ordered the Delhi Administration to pay a compensation of Rs 75,000, underscoring the state's responsibility in cases involving misconduct by its officers and further highlighting the judiciary's active role in protecting citizens' rights and ensuring accountability.

Across the world, legal systems acknowledge the significance of compensating crime victims. The United States, through the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, created compensation funds to assist those affected by crime. The 2006 case of Kenna v. U.S. District Court emphasized victims' rights to restitution, underscoring their essential place in the legal process. In the United Kingdom, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority offers government-funded compensation, demonstrating the judiciary's dedication to victim well-being.

Balancing the Scales: Compensation and Punishment

• Courts grapple with the dual task of punishing offenders and providing just compensation to victims. In Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983), the Supreme Court set a precedent by awarding compensation for illegal detention, asserting that punishment alone is insufficient to remedy the harm suffered by victims. This highlights the judiciary's broadened role beyond retribution to encompass holistic victim restitution.
• Obstacles to Effective Victim Compensation
  • Lack of awareness among victims
  • Insufficient funding for compensation programs
  • Bureaucratic delays
  • The varying compensation amounts across Indian states underscore the need for standardized national guidelines.
• Judicial Interventions The judiciary has occasionally stepped in to address these issues. In Laxmi v. Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court instructed states to provide fair compensation to acid attack survivors. This landmark ruling standardized compensation and mandated rehabilitation efforts.
• Expanding the Concept of Compensation The legal understanding of compensation is evolving beyond simple monetary relief. Cases like Suresh v. State of Haryana (2015) demonstrate a shift towards recognizing the importance of holistic rehabilitation for victims of sexual offenses. This includes establishing support systems that extend beyond financial assistance.
   
• International Perspectives and Practices While Indian courts have actively pursued victim compensation, valuable lessons can be learned from international practices. The South African Constitutional Court in S v. Makwanyane (1995), for example, emphasized restorative justice, integrating victim compensation with offender rehabilitation. Similarly, European courts stress state responsibility in providing compensation, ensuring victims aren't solely reliant on offender restitution.

Conclusion:
The judiciary plays a crucial role in aligning punitive justice with victim-centred approaches. By awarding compensation and mandating state intervention, courts uphold victims' fundamental rights, ensuring their dignity and rehabilitation. However, persistent efforts are essential to overcome systemic hurdles, harmonize practices, and strengthen the legal frameworks surrounding victim compensation. National and international examples illustrate the evolving nature of this responsibility, highlighting the need for a collaborative approach to achieving true justice for all victims.