(..16..)
VICTIMOLOGY
QUESTION BANK
Q.1 What is meant by āvictimologyā? Write down the history of victimology.
Q.2 Explain about concept and philosophy of victimology.
Q.3 Write a detailed note on the Indian experience on victimology.ā
Q.4 Explain in details āLegal framework on victimologyā.
Q.5 Explain in detail role of courts in victimology.
Q.6 Narrate role of NHRC in victimology with the help of related case laws.
Q.7 Explain the definition, nature and scope of victims and victimology.
SHORT NOTES
1. Rights of victims of crime.
2. Role and types of victims.
3. Victim and criminal justice system.
4. Emerging trends and polices in victimology.
SYNOPSIS
I. Historical Perspective of Victimology
II. Definition and Jurisprudential Meaning of a "Victim"
III. Structural Categorization of Victims
1. Primary Victims
2. Secondary Victims
3. Tertiary Victims
IV. Codified Rights of Crime Victims
1. The Right to Compensation and Redress
2. The Right to Access to Justice and Fair Treatment
a. Right to Contest Bail (Section 483 BNSS / Section 439 CrPC):
b. Protection Against Arbitrary Case Closures:
c. Consent in Compounding Offenses:
d. Appointment of Assistive Counsel (Section 340 BNSS / Section 301 CrPC):
e. In-Camera Proceedings (Section 366 BNSS / Section 327 CrPC):
f. The Absolute Right to Appeal:
3. The Right to Restitution
4. The Right to Comprehensive Assistance
V. The Historical Plight and Changing Position of Victims in India
VI. Landmark Judicial Pronouncements on Victim Compensation
VII. Role of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)
Major Interventions and Contributions
1. Enforcement of Mandatory Compensation Guidelines:
2. Catalyzing Progressive Social Legislation:
a. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005:
b. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007:
c. The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989:
3. Monitoring Custodial and Prison Facilities:
VIII. Conclusion
*****
I. Historical Perspective of Victimology
Historically, classical criminal jurisprudence and penology focused almost exclusively on the offenderāanalyzing the etiological causes of crime, designing deterrent sentences, and establishing institutional mechanisms for the correction and rehabilitation of criminals. Within this offender-centric paradigm, the victim of the crime was reduced to a mere proxy or a forgotten witness for the state during trial.
To correct this major systemic imbalance, the specialized sub-discipline of Victimology emerged within criminal science. The foundational pioneers of victimology include criminologists Benjamin Mendelsohn (who formally coined the term in 1947), Hans von Hentig, and Marvin Wolfgang.
In its initial stages during the 1940s, victimology possessed a highly restricted scope, focusing primarily on "victim-precipitation"āevaluating how the behavior or vulnerability of a victim might inadvertently contribute to the generation of a crime. However, influenced by international human rights movements, the contemporary definition of victimology underwent a major expansion during the 1980s.
Modern victimology functions as the comprehensive, scientific study of the physical, psychological, emotional, and financial trauma endured by victims of crime. It evaluates their systemic interactions with law enforcement, structural rights within the justice delivery grid, and the state-mandated mechanisms required for their restitution, compensation, and holistic rehabilitation.
II. Definition and Jurisprudential Meaning of a "Victim"
The focus of the traditional criminal justice delivery system in India has historically been heavily anchored in protecting the rights of the accused and the convict. Constitutional safeguards against arbitrary arrest, protections against self-incrimination, and the availability of legal aid were carefully codified. Conversely, the recognition of the independent statutory rights of the victim is a development of recent origin.
In common parlance, the term "victim" is expansive, encompassing any individual who experiences severe physical injury, emotional trauma, psychological distress, financial loss, or social hardship due to any supervening cause. This broad definition includes victims of industrial accidents, natural floods, devastating famines, or terminal medical conditions.
However, within criminological and penological jurisprudence, the scope of "victimology" is strictly limited to individuals who suffer direct or indirect harm at the hands of a perpetrator via a violation of the state's penal laws.
Following recommendations by successive law reform panels, the Parliament of India formally introduced an explicit statutory definition of the term. Under Section 2(zg) of the BhÄratÄ«ya Nagarik Suraksha SanhitÄ, 2023 (BNSS)āwhich permanently replaced Section 2(wa) of the legacy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)āa "victim" is defined as:
"A person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and includes his or her guardian or legal heir."
This updated statutory definition explicitly recognizes that the status of a victim extends beyond the immediate target of the crime to include their lawful guardians and legal heirs, ensuring they possess an independent legal standing to participate in the justice dispensation process. Consequently, modern victimology demands that a victim must not be treated as a passive bystander during litigation, but as an active stakeholder entitled to compassion, systemic protection, institutional assistance, and mandatory state compensation.
III. Structural Categorization of Victims
To map the cascading ripples of criminal victimization and design precise therapeutic and financial remedies, victimologists classify affected individuals into three functional tiers.
1. Primary Victims
A primary victim is the individual who directly experiences the physical, psychological, or financial impact of the criminal act. They are the immediate target of the perpetrator's unlawful conduct. Examples include a survivor of a sexual assault, an individual who is physically injured during an armed robbery, or a property owner whose assets are embezzled through corporate fraud.
2. Secondary Victims
Secondary victims are individuals who do not experience the direct impact of the crime itself, but suffer severe emotional trauma, psychological distress, or financial injury as a direct consequence of the harm inflicted upon the primary victim. This vulnerability is anchored in close familial, emotional, or dependency relationships. Examples include the children of a sexual assault survivor, the dependent parents of a homicide victim, or the immediate family members of an individual who sustains permanent injuries in a vehicular hit-and-run incident.
3. Tertiary Victims
A tertiary victim is an individual or a collective group that experiences psychological trauma, economic hardship, or systemic fear due to the criminal actions of others, despite lacking a direct personal or familial connection to either the perpetrator or the primary victim. Examples include:
a. Community members whose neighborhoods are targeted during communal rioting or public acts of hooliganism.
b. Litigants or random onlookers who witness a violent crime executed before their eyes, suffering severe psychological shock and post-traumatic stress.
c. Entire populations residing within active conflict zones or high-crime sectors, who endure continuous emotional distress due to the pervasive threat of violence.
Criminologists emphasize that this classification represents a functional mapping of proximity rather than a measure of emotional suffering. It cannot be assumed that secondary or tertiary victims experience less trauma than a primary victim.
For instance, in a fatal accident or a pre-mediated murder, the primary victim's suffering ends with their death. However, the surviving family members (the secondary victims) endure lifelong emotional distress, absolute financial destitution, and severe social displacement. Therefore, contemporary victimology requires that state support systems must extend protection and compensation across all three tiers of victimization.
IV. Codified Rights of Crime Victims
Contemporary Indian criminal procedure and international declarations recognize four primary categories of rights designed to transition the justice delivery system from an offender-centric model to a restorative, victim-oriented paradigm.
1. The Right to Compensation and Redress
The right of a victim to receive financial compensation from the state or the offender represents a major milestone in modern penology. This right is anchored globally in the United Nations General Assembly Declarations of 1985 (The Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power) and 2005 (The Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation). These international charters establish that victims must be treated with compassion, respect for their inherent dignity, and be provided with prompt restitution, financial compensation, and medical and social rehabilitation.
In the contemporary Indian procedural grid, this right is governed comprehensively under Sections 395 and 396 of the BhÄratÄ«ya Nagarik Suraksha SanhitÄ, 2023 (which replaced Sections 357 and 357A of the legacy CrPC).
a. Under Section 395, the trial court is authorized to order that a portion of the fine recovered from the convict be paid to the victim to cover expenses incurred in prosecution and to compensate for any loss or injury caused by the offense.
b. Under Section 396, every State Government, in coordination with the Central Government, is statutorily mandated to formulate a formal Victim Compensation Scheme. This scheme creates a dedicated state fund to provide financial compensation to victims or their dependents who have suffered substantial loss or injury due to a crime, and who require rehabilitation, irrespective of whether the offender is identified, apprehended, or acquitted.
2. The Right to Access to Justice and Fair Treatment
The right to access to justice ensures that the victim possesses an active voice at critical stages of the criminal trial. Under the BNSS, 2023, this right is protected through specific procedural mandates:
a. Right to Contest Bail (Section 483 BNSS / Section 439 CrPC): The victim has the legal standing to approach the Court of Session or the High Court to submit arguments contesting or seeking the cancellation of bail granted to an accused, particularly in serious or sexual offenses.
b. Protection Against Arbitrary Case Closures: A jurisdictional Magistrate cannot accept a final case closure report (such as a C-Summary or Frustrated Report) submitted by investigative agencies without issuing a formal notice to the informant or victim, ensuring they are granted a fair opportunity to file a Protest Petition.
c. Consent in Compounding Offenses: An offense cannot be legally compounded or settled out of court without the explicit, voluntary consent of the aggrieved victim.
d. Appointment of Assistive Counsel (Section 340 BNSS / Section 301 CrPC): While the Public Prosecutor conducts the criminal trial on behalf of the state, the victim possesses an explicit statutory right to engage a private advocate to assist the prosecution. With the prior permission of the court, the victim's counsel can submit written arguments at the close of evidence.
e. In-Camera Proceedings (Section 366 BNSS / Section 327 CrPC): To protect the privacy and prevent the public humiliation of survivors of sexual offenses, the law mandates that inquiries and trials must be conducted in-camera (inside a closed courtroom), strictly prohibiting the unauthorized media publication of the proceedings.
f. The Absolute Right to Appeal: Solidified by modern amendments, the proviso to Section 413 of the BNSS, 2023, grants the victim an independent, absolute right to prefer a statutory appeal against any order passed by the trial court acquitting the accused, convicting them for a lesser offense, or imposing inadequate compensation.
3. The Right to Restitution
Restitution involves an order by the court directing the principal offender to pay financial compensation directly to the victim to cover tangible economic losses caused by their criminal behavior. It targets the restoration of the victim's original financial position, compelling the offender to pay for the replacement of damaged or stolen property, or to directly clear the medical expenses incurred by the victim due to a criminal injury. A classic example of structured statutory restitution is Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, where an individual whose cheque bounces is legally restored by ordering the drawer to pay up to double the face value of the dishonored instrument as a penalty-cum-compensation.
4. The Right to Comprehensive Assistance
The right to assistance requires the state to provide immediate, non-punitive support infrastructure to victims of crime. This assistance encompasses:
a. Immediate emergency medical treatment and forensic documentation at recognized healthcare facilities without administrative delays.
b. Access to state-funded psychiatric counseling and psychological rehabilitation to process post-crime trauma.
c. Provision of secure housing options inside certified Shelter Homes for victims facing ongoing domestic threats or witness intimidation.
d. Access to institutional legal aid and free-of-cost documentation through the district grids of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
V. The Historical Plight and Changing Position of Victims in India
Historically, the structural configuration of the Indian criminal justice system displayed a deep neglect toward the victims of crime, allocating state resources almost exclusively toward the detection, trial, and reformation of the offender. This institutional blind spot was heavily criticized by eminent jurists. In his treatise, Access to Justice, the legendary judge Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer masterfully exposed this systemic disparity, observing that:
"The criminal law in India is not victim-oriented, and the suffering of the victim, often immeasurable, is entirely overlooked in misplaced sympathy for the criminal. Though our modern criminal law is designed to punish and reform the criminals, it overlooks the by-product of crime, i.e., the victim."
This critique reflected an early reality where an accused individual enjoyed wide constitutional protections, while a impoverished victim was left to navigate the severe aftermath of their victimization without state support or psychological counseling.
However, following a series of legislative amendments culminating in the complete procedural enforcement of the BhÄratÄ«ya Nagarik Suraksha SanhitÄ, 2023, the pendulum has systematically swung toward a victim-centric model. Indian courts have actively integrated the concepts of Restorative Justice into their daily sentencing exercises, establishing that awarding financial compensation to a victim is a mandatory statutory duty rather than a discretionary option.
VI. Landmark Judicial Pronouncements on Victim Compensation
The higher judiciary in India has utilized its constitutional powers under Articles 32 and 226 to expand the scope of victimology, establishing that the right to receive compensation for violations committed by state or private actors is an integral facet of the right to life under Article 21.
1. Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar [AIR 1983 SC 1086]
In this landmark judgment, Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar [AIR 1983 SC 1086], the Supreme Court considered the case of a person who remained illegally confined in prison for nearly fourteen years even after his acquittal by a competent criminal court. Holding that such unlawful detention constituted a gross violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court ruled that a mere order directing the prisoner's release would not provide an effective constitutional remedy. Exercising its jurisdiction under Article 32, the Supreme Court awarded monetary compensation to the petitioner, thereby laying the foundation of the doctrine of constitutional or public law compensation for violations of fundamental rights. The Court observed that where the State, through its officers, unlawfully deprives a person of liberty, constitutional courts are empowered to grant monetary relief in addition to ordering release, without prejudice to the victim's right to pursue a separate civil action for damages.
2. Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir [AIR 1986 SC 494]
In Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, [AIR 1986 SC 494], the Supreme Court considered the case of a Member of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly who was unlawfully arrested and detained by the police while travelling to attend a session of the Legislative Assembly. The illegal detention prevented him from participating in the legislative proceedings and was found to be wholly unjustified and mala fide. Holding that the arrest constituted a grave violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court awarded exemplary compensation of ā¹50,000 to the petitioner. The Court reaffirmed that constitutional courts possess the power to grant monetary compensation in public law for arbitrary and unlawful deprivation of personal liberty, thereby ensuring effective enforcement of fundamental rights and accountability of public authorities.
3. Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum v. Union of India [AIR 1995 SC 153 In Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum v. Union of India, [AIR 1995 SC 153], the Supreme Court considered the plight of women who were allegedly gang-raped while travelling by train. Recognising the vulnerability of survivors of sexual violence within the criminal justice system, the Court issued important guidelines to ensure a victim-centred approach to investigation and trial. It directed that rape survivors should be provided competent legal assistance at the earliest stage of the investigation and should be informed of their right to such representation. The Court also emphasised the need to protect the privacy and dignity of victims and recognised the importance of counselling and rehabilitative support. Further, it recommended the establishment of a Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to award compensation to victims of sexual assault and other serious crimes, thereby laying the foundation for the development of the modern victim compensation jurisprudence in India.
4. Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty [AIR 1996 SC 922].
In this case, a university lecturer used deception, a fraudulent marriage ritual, and continuous emotional coercion to subject a woman to sustained sexual exploitation and forced abortions, subsequently abandoning her.
The Supreme Court delivered a powerful defense of bodily autonomy, ruling that rape is a heinous crime that violates the fundamental right to life and dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Apex Court established that the higher judiciary possesses the inherent power to award interim financial compensation to a sexual assault survivor during the active pendency of a criminal trial, ensuring that the victim is not left to face financial distress while the final determination of guilt is being adjudicated.
5. Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka [AIR 2019 SC 489]
In Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v. State of Karnataka, [AIR 2019 SC 489], the Supreme Court undertook an extensive examination of the development of victimology in Indian criminal jurisprudence and reaffirmed the growing recognition of victims as important participants in the criminal justice system. Interpreting the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a liberal and purposive manner, the Court held that the proviso confers upon a victim an independent statutory right to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, or the award of inadequate compensation. The Court further clarified that this right is distinct from the State's right of appeal under Section 378 and is not dependent upon obtaining special leave contemplated under Section 378(4), which governs appeals arising from complaint cases. The judgment significantly strengthened the participatory rights of victims while ensuring that such appeals remain subject to the procedure prescribed by law.
VII. Role of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), established under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, functions as a powerful statutory guardian to protect the fundamental freedoms of citizens, prioritizing the assistance and rehabilitation of victims of crime and systemic state abuse.
Major Interventions and Contributions
The NHRC has consistently used its statutory authority to investigate human rights violations and reshape the national approach to victimology:
1. Enforcement of Mandatory Compensation Guidelines: The Commission has consistently intervened in cases involving custodial deaths, fake encounters, unmonitored police high-handedness, and administrative negligence, issuing binding recommendations to direct State Governments to pay immediate financial compensation to the families of deceased or injured victims.
2. Catalyzing Progressive Social Legislation: The NHRC has conducted extensive research and submitted policy recommendations that directly catalyzed the drafting and final enactment of specialized, victim-centric social legislations by Parliament. These include:
a. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: Providing immediate civil-cum-housing reliefs to survivors of familial abuse.
b. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007: Institutionalizing the safety, care, and financial maintenance of aged demographics.
c. The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Ensuring heightened penal protection, specialized fast-track courts, and mandatory immediate financial compensation for victims belonging to historically marginalized communities.
3. Monitoring Custodial and Prison Facilities: The Commission conducts regular site visits and inspections of prisons, mental healthcare facilities, and protection homes to ensure that the living conditions of inmates conform to basic human rights standards, actively working to eradicate secondary victimization inside state institutions.
VIII. Conclusion
The historical evolution of victimology demonstrates a steady, progressive shift away from purely offender-focused penology toward a model that balances deterrence with Restorative Justice. Under the contemporary procedural architecture of the BNSS, 2023, the victim is no longer a forgotten witness but an equal stakeholder in the administration of justice.
By enforcing an absolute right to contest bail, establishing mandatory Victim Compensation Schemes under Section 396, ensuring an independent right to appeal against acquittals, and utilizing the public law liability protections established in the Rudal Sah guidelines, the Indian legal ecosystem protects public safety, supports the recovery of survivors, and maintains the rule of law.
*****