Judicial Precedents On Victim Compensation And Restorative Justice
1. Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 6 SCC 770
Facts:
The appellant was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the IPC. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment but did not award compensation to the victim’s family. The matter reached the Supreme Court, raising the issue of whether courts are obligated to consider victim compensation under Section 357(3) of the CrPC.
Issue:
Is it mandatory for courts to consider compensation to victims while passing a criminal sentence, even if not expressly requested?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that courts are under a duty to apply their mind to the question of compensation in every criminal case. If compensation is not awarded, the judgment must record reasons. The Court stated that victim compensation is not a matter of charity but a legal right of victims, particularly when the offender cannot provide restitution.
Significance:
Strengthened the victim-oriented approach within the criminal justice system.
Reinforced that restorative justice is essential to balance the rights of offenders and victims.
Made it mandatory for courts to consider compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC in every case.
2. Suresh v. State of Haryana (2015) 2 SCC 227
Facts:
A minor girl was raped, and while the offender was convicted, the trial court did not award compensation. The victim’s father filed an appeal seeking compensation under Section 357A CrPC.
Issue:
Whether compensation to victims under Section 357A is mandatory or discretionary?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that Section 357A CrPC introduces a mandatory duty upon the state to provide compensation to victims or their dependents, regardless of whether the offender is identified, convicted, or acquitted. The Court directed all states to establish effective Victim Compensation Schemes under this section.
Significance:
Affirmed that the right to compensation is a part of Article 21 (Right to Life and Dignity).
Directed all state governments to implement and update victim compensation schemes.
Emphasized a shift from punitive to restorative justice, acknowledging the victim’s suffering and rehabilitation needs.
3. Laxmi v. Union of India (2014) 4 SCC 427 (Acid Attack Case)
Facts:
Laxmi, a minor, was attacked with acid by a man whose advances she had refused. There was no specific compensation policy or rehabilitation mechanism for acid attack victims at that time.
Issue:
Should victims of acid attacks receive mandatory compensation and medical support from the state?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court recognized the need for state responsibility toward rehabilitation and compensation of acid attack victims. It directed all states to:
Pay a minimum compensation of ₹3 lakh to every acid attack victim.
Provide free medical treatment, reconstructive surgeries, and psychological counseling.
Strictly regulate the sale of acid.
Significance:
Marked a turning point in victim-centric jurisprudence.
Emphasized restorative justice through financial, medical, and social rehabilitation.
Expanded the interpretation of Article 21 to include the right to live with dignity even after victimization.
4. Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2019) 2 SCC 703
Facts:
This case arose from concerns about protecting the identity and rights of rape survivors. The Court also addressed the issue of compensation and the status of victim compensation schemes across India.
Issue:
What measures are necessary to protect the dignity, identity, and rehabilitation of sexual assault victims?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court laid down comprehensive guidelines:
No media outlet or individual may disclose the identity of a rape victim.
The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and State Legal Services Authorities must ensure uniform victim compensation across states.
Directed implementation of NALSA’s Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes (2018).
Significance:
Reinforced the concept of restorative justice as a constitutional obligation.
Highlighted that victim rehabilitation must be psychological, social, and economic.
Strengthened coordination between courts, legal aid authorities, and state governments.
5. Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India (1995) 1 SCC 14
Facts:
Several domestic workers were raped by army personnel, and despite conviction, the victims received no legal assistance or compensation.
Issue:
What obligations does the state have toward victims of sexual assault in terms of compensation and legal support?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court recognized the lack of victim support mechanisms in India and directed the government to create a Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. It emphasized that victims of sexual assault suffer social and emotional trauma that cannot be ignored by focusing solely on punishing offenders.
Significance:
One of the earliest cases acknowledging victim compensation as part of restorative justice.
Directed formulation of schemes that later influenced Section 357A CrPC.
Stressed free legal aid, psychological counseling, and rehabilitation for victims.
Conclusion
These landmark judgments collectively illustrate India’s transition from a retributive justice model (focused on punishing offenders) to a restorative justice system, which aims to restore victims’ dignity, provide rehabilitation, and ensure fair compensation.
They emphasize that justice is incomplete unless victims are recognized, supported, and restored to a dignified life — a vision now embedded in India’s criminal jurisprudence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments