Victim compensation contributes significantly to furnishing financial restitution and rehabilitation to individuals adversely affected by criminal acts. In the context of India, this principle has undergone significant development through legislative measures, notably Sections 395 and 396(1) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which were previously identified as Sections 357 and 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), in conjunction with progressive judicial interpretations. This discussion examines the legal framework governing victim compensation, tracing its evolution from optional choices to firm state policies. It scrutinizes pivotal judicial trajectories through seminal rulings such as Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, Karan v. State NCT of Delhi and Saif Ali @ Sohan v. State of NCT of Delhi , emphasizing the transition towards obligatory compensation and the ensuing procedural complexities. The investigation questions whether stipulations such as mandatory financial disclosures by convicts and postponed sentencing, as per the Karan framework, represent judicial overreach and thereby contravene constitutional protections enshrined in Articles 20(3) and 21. Furthermore, this analysis provides a detailed narrative of compensation distribution across Indian states between 2014 and 2024, uncovering persistent inequalities and challenges. The article proposes a strategy that aligns victim-centred changes with equitable justice processes for the accused, putting forth policy suggestions aimed at creating uniform compensation guidelines, cutting down on delays and ensuring constitutional protections.
Dr. Bharti Yadav (2026) studied this question.