Understanding Victim Compensation after a Committed Crime 

~Sura Anjana Srimayi

INTRODUCTION

Victim compensation schemes are a paradigm change in the philosophy of contemporary criminal justice. Historically, the legal system was oriented toward punishing the offender and upholding state order at the expense of the victim, leaving them an afterthought. In the last few decades, there has been a realization that justice is not complete without rectifying physical, emotional, and financial damage to victims of crime. Victim compensation schemes are a response to this requirement in as much as they create a legal framework by which victims can be paid or rehabilitated, irrespective of the outcome of a criminal proceeding. This recognizes the obligation of the state to its subjects and offers a vital safeguard for those whose lives have been disrupted by crime. The growth of these schemes, especially in nations such as India, is part of a worldwide trend toward a more victim-focused and restorative approach to justice.

Victim-Focused Approach

The path to official victim compensation in India is one of judicial activism and legal evolution. Historically, the sole legal provision available for victim compensation was Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This was a provision that gave a court, after convicting the accused, the power to direct an offender to pay compensation out of any penalty imposed upon conviction. Yet, this approach contained great weaknesses: compensation was not mandatory, subject to an offender's conviction and means, and frequently insufficient.

The true drivers of reform were judicial utterances and the views of expert bodies. The Indian courts, especially the Supreme Court, started interpreting the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution as being inclusive of the right to a dignified life, requiring the existence of a scheme of compensation for crime victims. This was the development at the constitutional level that set the stage for a more formal and institutionalized system. The Malimath Committee Report of 2003 also strengthened this stance, proposing a state-sponsored compensation scheme which would be available to all victims irrespective of the result of the trial.

This prompted a landmark amendment of the CrPC in 2008, which included Section 357A. This section, which came into force in 2009, represented the formal inception of the victim compensation scheme framework in India. It requires each state government, in consultation with the Central Government, to draft a scheme for raising funds towards the end of compensating victims or their dependents.

Indian Legal Framework: Section 357A CrPC and State Schemes

The foundation of India's victim compensation scheme is Section 357A of the CrPC. The section makes compensation a right and not a possibility, and not something handed out by the offender but by the state.

1. Mandatory State Schemes: The provision imposes a statutory duty on every state government to establish a Victim Compensation Scheme (VCS). Such schemes must make available funds for compensation and rehabilitation to victims of crime who have sustained loss or injury.
2. Irrespective of Conviction: Another most notable aspect of Section 357A is that it provides compensation to the victims even if the accused is acquitted, discharged, or not traced or identified. This is a glaring defect in the erstwhile system, as it ensures that the victims are not left to suffer because of a failed prosecution or an unknown offender.
3. Role of Legal Services Authorities: The State Legal Services Authority (SLSA) or District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) is responsible for running these schemes. In case of recommendation by a court or by a direct application by a victim, the concerned legal services authority is duty-bound to hold a speedy enquiry and determine the amount of compensation.
4. Early Relief: The section also authorizes the SLSA or DLSA to direct early first-aid and medical relief for a victim, mitigating their agony during the vital hours after a crime. This section is extremely important for victims of crimes such as acid attacks or rape.

After the passing of Section 357A, all Union Territories and states in India came up with their own unique Victim Compensation Schemes. Although these schemes are founded on the central law, they tend to differ in their individual eligibility criteria, the definition of crimes covered, and the quantum of compensation provided. An example would be a state's scheme providing a greater compensation quantum for a certain crime such as a hate crime or acid attack, which would be in accordance with local priorities and social realities.

Implementation and Challenges in Practice

While the legal framework for compensating victims is strong, its enforcement on the ground has been subject to various shortcomings.

1. Differing Compensation Amounts: The absence of a national uniform standard results in varying compensation amounts between states for the same offense. A victim of an offense in one state may get a much smaller amount compared to a victim of the same offense in another, creating inequalities in justice and issues of fairness.
2. Bureaucratic Barriers: Compensation application can be complicated and slow for victims who are usually suffering from trauma and financial hardship. Victims do not know the scheme exists or find application processes, which can include the submission of several documents, to be intimidating. Delays in the payment of money can also defeat the purpose of the scheme.
3. Underutilization of Funds: Though the law requires it, there is underutilization of funds by most state-run schemes. In most cases, this is because of poor awareness among both the victims and the police officials, as well as bureaucratic inefficiency.
4. Exclusion of Certain Victims: There could be certain schemes that contain eligibility criteria like an income limit or a time period within which the crime should be reported, excluding unwittingly marginalized or vulnerable victims.

To overcome these problems, the central government has implemented schemes such as the Central Victim Compensation Fund (CVCF) in order to provide states with financial aid and prompt them to work their schemes more efficiently.

CONCLUSION

Victim compensation schemes are an important step in the direction of transformation in India's criminal justice system, deviating from an entirely offender-focused model to one that actually aims for restoration and rehabilitation of victims. The legal infrastructure, rooted mainly in Section 357A of the CrPC, gives a sound basis to state-sponsored compensation as well as ensures that relief is not dependent on a conviction. While the promise of these schemes is immense, their true success hinges on effective implementation. Addressing challenges such as bureaucratic delays, public awareness, and the disparity in compensation amounts across states will be critical. The path towards a genuinely restorative system of justice demands ongoing commitment from the judiciary, government, and civil society to the cause that no victim is abandoned to live in pain and silence and that the balance of justice is struck not just for the accused but, most critically, for the victim