Authored By: Inayat Rehmani
The Glocal University , Saharanpur
ABSTRACT
The Indian criminal justice system has traditionally focused more on the rights of the accused, while victims were given a limited role in criminal proceedings. Although protecting the accused is important to ensure fairness, this approach often ignored the needs and concerns of victims. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeks to correct this imbalance by giving greater importance to victims and by promoting a more victim-centric approach to criminal justice. While the constitutional protections provided under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India are essential to prevent misuse of state power and to protect individual liberty, the position of victims in criminal proceedings has remained largely overlooked. Victims have traditionally been treated only as witnesses, with very limited involvement in the stages of investigation, prosecution, and trial. This limited role has resulted in an unequal balance of power within the criminal justice system, where the voices and interests of victims are often sidelined.
The enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which replaces the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), is a legislative effort to correct the long-standing imbalance between the rights of the accused and the role of victims. The BNSS introduces various provisions intended to strengthen victim’s rights by improving their access to information, ensuring timely investigation of offences, providing avenues for compensation, and recognizing victims as important participants in the criminal process rather than as mere spectators. However, it remains debated whether these reforms truly bring about a fundamental shift towards a victim-centric system of criminal justice. This article critically analyses whether the BNSS meaningfully restructures criminal procedure to prioritize victim’s interests, or whether it merely brings limited and symbolic changes within a system that continues to be largely accused-centric due to existing institutional practices and constitutional constraints.
INTRODUCTION
Criminal procedure reflects the values that a society associates with justice, fairness, and respect for human dignity. In India, criminal procedure has traditionally focused on protecting the rights of the accused, mainly based on the constitutional safeguards provided under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution. These safeguards are essential to prevent misuse of state power and to ensure fair legal process. However, the strong emphasis on the rights of the accused has often led to the neglect of victims, who have generally been treated only as witnesses rather than as active participants in the justice system. In the past, victims have had limited access to information about the progress of investigation and trial, very little involvement in decisions related to prosecution, and insufficient institutional or emotional support.
This exclusion has shaped a criminal justice system that views crime mainly as an offence against the State, rather than as a violation of the rights and dignity of individuals. As a result, victims often suffer secondary victimization due to long procedural delays, lack of proper communication from investigating authorities, and the emotional stress of repeatedly dealing with a complex and unclear legal process. The lack of meaningful participation for victims also reduces the system’s ability to provide restorative or reparative justice, as victim’s needs for recognition, closure, and compensation are often not properly addressed.
Over time, courts and law reform initiatives have started to recognize these shortcomings, accepting that a fair and effective criminal justice system must maintain a balance between protecting the rights of the accused and properly addressing the interests of victims. However, this recognition has mostly resulted in gradual and limited changes rather than deep structural reform. The basic procedural framework still largely favors the accused, which raises serious questions about whether recent legislative changes truly represent a move towards victim-centric justice or simply provide symbolic recognition to victims within an otherwise accused-focused system.
VICTIM CENTRIC JUSTICE : CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Victim-centric justice treats victims as individuals who hold rights and play an active role in criminal proceedings, rather than viewing them only as witnesses or passive complainants. International legal instruments, especially the United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, emphasize that victims are entitled to fair treatment, access to justice, restitution, compensation, and necessary support. In India, this idea has developed mainly through judicial decisions rather than through clear and specific legislative provisions. For example, allowing victims to be informed about the progress of investigation and trial helps them understand how their case is being handled and reduces uncertainty. Granting victims the right to be heard at key stages, such as during bail hearings or sentencing ensures that their concerns and experiences are taken into account. Providing compensation to victims of crimes such as sexual offences or acid attacks recognizes the harm suffered and assists in their rehabilitation. Similarly, access to counseling and legal assistance supports victims emotionally and practically, enabling them to participate meaningfully in the justice process.
VICTIMS UNDER THE CrPC : AN ACCUSED-CENTRIC LEGACY
The Code of Criminal Procedure has traditionally followed a State-centric model of prosecution, in which the role of the victim was mostly limited to that of an informant or a witness. This restricted the victim’s ability to participate meaningfully in criminal proceedings. Although legislative changes such as Section 357A, which introduced victim compensation schemes, and the proviso to Section 372, which granted victims a limited right to appeal, were intended to address these gaps, their implementation has been inconsistent across different jurisdictions. In practice, many victims still face procedural delays, receive inadequate information about the progress of their cases, and lack sufficient institutional support. The lack of effective witness protection mechanisms further leaves victims vulnerable to intimidation and harassment, which often discourages them from cooperating with the justice process. These systemic shortcomings frequently result in secondary victimization, where victims suffer renewed trauma not because of the crime itself but due to their interaction with the criminal justice system. Therefore, strengthening the implementation of laws, increasing awareness, and improving support structures is essential to achieve a truly victim-centric criminal justice framework.
JUDICIAL EVOLUTION OF VICTIM-CENTRIC JUSTICE IN INDIA : FROM STATE DOMINANCE TO PARTICIPATORY RIGHTS
Judicial interpretation in India has been instrumental in gradually transforming the criminal justice system from a predominantly State-centric model to one that acknowledges and protects the rights of victims, a shift that aligns closely with the objectives of the BNSS, 2023. In Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court explicitly recognized that victims cannot be treated as silent spectators and held that the right to appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC is an essential aspect of participatory justice. This decision marked a significant step in restoring the victim’s voice within criminal proceedings. Similarly, in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, the Court emphasized that compensation to victims under Section 357 CrPC is not a matter of judicial discretion alone but a duty that must be actively considered, thereby reinforcing the restorative function of criminal law. The Court further broadened the protective framework in Suresh v. State of Haryana by clarifying that compensation under Section 357A CrPC can be awarded even when the accused is acquitted or remains unidentified, recognizing the victim’s suffering as independent of the outcome of the trial. Additionally, concerns relating to intimidation and secondary victimization were addressed in Mahender Chawla v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court approved acomprehensive Witness Protection Scheme, acknowledging that effective justice is impossible unless victims and witnesses are assured safety and dignity throughout the process. Collectively, these decisions reflect a judicial commitment to victim-centric justice, which now finds statutory reinforcement under the BNSS, though its real impact will depend on faithful implementation and institutional support.
CONCLUSION
The gradual evolution of victim-centric justice in India reflects an important acknowledgement that a fair criminal justice system cannot be sustained by focusing solely on the rights of the accused. While constitutional safeguards under Articles 20 and 21 remain foundational, justice becomes truly meaningful only when victims are treated with dignity, respect, and inclusion. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 represents a constructive step towards addressing long-standing gaps by recognizing victims as stakeholders entitled to information, protection, and compensation. However, the success of this shift depends not merely on legislative intent but on consistent implementation, institutional sensitivity, and judicial commitment at every stage of the process. If effectively operationalised, the BNSS has the potential to move Indian criminal procedure towards a more balanced, humane, and restorative framework—one that upholds due process while ensuring that victims are no longer invisible within the pursuit of justice.
REFERENCE(S):
1 INDIA CONST. arts. 20, 21.
2 G.A. Res. 40/34, Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power (Nov. 29, 1985).
3 Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 S.C.C. 752 (India).
4 Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 6 S.C.C. 770 (India).
5 Suresh v. State of Haryana, (2015) 2 S.C.C. 227 (India).
6 Mahender Chawla v. Union of India, (2019) 14 S.C.C. 615 (India).
