INTRODUCTION
Historically, the Indian judiciary system has always functioned under a state-centric, adversarial model[1], which was taken after the inspiration from the British colonial law. State-centric means that courts tend to prioritise the authority, interests, and claims of the State over the rights of individual citizens. Often showing deference to laws, policies, police action, or executive decisions, especially when the State justifies them in the name of public order, security, or national interest, rather than strictly questioning or limiting government power to protect fundamental rights. The victims were treated as mere witnesses. In a state-centric system, crimes are seen as wrongs against the State, so the government prosecutes the case and controls the process, while the victim is reduced to someone who just gives evidence to help the State prove its case. However, modern criminal jurisprudence has started acknowledging victimology and restorative justice, moving away from a purely retributive focus to recognise the victim as a primary stakeholder. This shows us the evolution of the Indian judiciary system, going from state-centric to victim-centric. This evolution, solidified by the 2024 legislative implementation like the BNS, BNSS, and BSA that integrates the victim into the process through mandated updates, digital accessibility like Zero FIRs, and a right to be heard, effectively transitioning from a “State vs. Accused” binary to a tripartite model that seeks to balance procedural fairness for the offender with dignity and restitution for the harmed.
VICTIMOLOGY
Victimology is the scientific study of crime victims, focusing on what victims suffer, how crimes affect them mentally and physically, how they relate to offenders, and how the justice system treats them. In simple terms, victimology is the study of the victims who have suffered or have been harmed by crimes. This study doesn’t just focus on what happened during the crime but also studies the cause; why did this person become a victim, how are they coping, are they hurting physically or mentally, and how does the judicial system treat them. Victimology generally looks at three levels of harm[2]. First, the person who is generally hurt directly by the crime. Second, the harm caused by the system; for instance, if the victim is mistreated by court procedures or if the lawyers are rude to them, etc. . . . Third, is the harm felt by the victim’s close ones or family?
We can see that this process has evolved. During ancient times, the victims were the centre of justice; the whole process revolved around making it right for the person who was hurt. Later, as the years passed, the government took over the role of the victim and ideology changed into crime being treated as against the state rather than the victim. For years, the victims were being treated merely as witnesses who helped the state deliver justice against the person who had committed the crime. It wasn’t until the 1940s that pioneers like Mendelsohn and von Hinting began to study victims scientifically, realising that we couldn’t understand crime without understanding the person it affected. This led to how the modern judiciary system sees the victims, and the state becoming victim-centric to further solve the cases of crime against humanity.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR VICTIM RIGHTS IN INDIA
The first and foremost law we can look into is in the Constitution of India, also known as the parent law of India. Where laws such as Article 14, equality before law, ensure that every person is treated fairly regardless of their background and offered protection by the law. Article 21, right to life & dignity; the courts have interpreted this as every victim has the right to be treated with fairness and dignity, rather than just a piece of evidence. Article 39 A, free legal aid; the court acknowledges that not every victim is financially capable of hiring a lawyer, thus it mandates that the state provide free legal services so that poverty doesn’t block the path to justice.
Secondly comes our statutory rights, which are currently transitioning from the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), where specific sections give victims concrete power. Section 173 of BNSS states that when a crime is reported for the first time, the victim has the right to get a copy of the FIR for free. Section 357A of the CrPC, it says the state must have a fund to pay victims for their injuries or loss. Crucially, a victim can get this money even if the attacker is not caught or is acquitted, as the focus is on the victim’s rehabilitation. Section 372 of the CrPC, previously, only the accused or the state could appeal a judgment. Now, the victim has a direct right to appeal if the court acquits the accused, gives a punishment that is too light, or provides inadequate compensation. Section 24(8), Right to Representation; while a public prosecutor represents the state, the victims have the right to hire their own private advocate to assist the prosecution and ensure their interests are protected during the trial.
Finally, we also have specialised protections to protect the victim from further trauma. The POCSO Act (2012) is a law for children who are under the age of 18, which ensures their safety and well-being. SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act (1989), this law provides specialised protections for marginalized communities. The NALSA Scheme (2018), This is a set of guidelines set out by the NLSA for a standard set of uniform compensation, especially for women who have survived harm in cases like sexual assault and acid attacks, ensuring they receive a minimum amount for medical and psychological recovery. [3]
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS STRENGTHENING VICTIMS’ RIGHTS
In India, the criminal justice system has historically been offender-centric. However, through judicial activism, the Supreme Court and High Courts have established a robust framework of victims’ rights, often reading them into Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution.
In cases like Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar (1983), Rudul Shah was illegally detained in prison for about fourteen years even after the prosecution failed to prove him guilty. He filed a writ petition under Article 32 for violation of his fundamental right under Article 21. The Supreme Court held that illegal detention amounts to a serious violation of the right to life and personal liberty and that mere release is not sufficient relief. In a similar case of Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993), the son of Nilabati Behera died due to custodial violence after being taken into police custody. The Supreme Court held that custodial death is a grave violation of Article 21 and that the State has a strict liability to protect persons in its custody. These cases established the state’s liability to compensate victims for illegal detention and custodial violence.
In Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008)[4], the Supreme Court held that if the police fail to properly investigate a case or refuse to register an FIR, the aggrieved person has the right to approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. The Court upheld the power of the Magistrate to order and monitor a fair investigation to ensure justice. This was also further upheld in the Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka (2018). The Court held that victims are not merely witnesses but rather the affected Parties in the criminal process and must be given a meaningful role. This judgment strengthened victim participation and ensured fairness and balance in criminal trials.
CONCLUSION
The journey of victim rights in the Indian criminal justice system shows us the gradual yet meaningful shift from mere recognition to realisation. While victims were treated as mere witnesses in a state-centric framework, now, through constitutional principles, legislative reforms, and judicial interventions, it has reformed itself as victim-centric. The recent criminal law reforms further institutionalise this victim-centric approach by ensuring dignity, transparency, and restorative justice. However, true realisation depends on effective implementation, awareness, and sensitivity at the grassroots level, ensuring that victims experience justice not only in law, but in practice.
Author’s Name: Namratha Aradhya. G (Christ Academy Institute of Law, Bengaluru)
References:
[1] India’s Adversarial Criminal Justice System (TheLaw.institute, 2026) https://thelaw.institute/introduction-to-law/indias-adversarial-criminal-justice-system/ accessed 24 January 2026.
[2] Victimology and Victims of Crimes: An Overview (Legal Service India, 2026) https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-15844-victimology-and-victims-of-crimes-an-overview.html accessed 24 January 2026.
[3]Dr Amit Kumar and Abhishek Kumar Singh, ‘Victim and Witness Protection Laws in India: A Legal and Social Analysis’ (2025) 7 International Journal of Law, Policy and Social Review 79.
[4] Sakiri Vasu v State of UP (2008) 2 SCC 409 (SC).
