REHABILITATION AND LEGAL RIGHTS OF RAPE AND ACID ATTACK SURVIVORS IN INDIA
Author: Netra Gayatri Rajesh Bhagadia
Student, Kes shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College
—————————————————————————-
đź’ˇ 3 Quick Takeaways
1. Indian jurisprudence is transitioning from a colonial punishment-centric model to a restorative justice model that prioritizes victim rehabilitation.
2. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) formalize immediate medical treatment and structured compensation independent of conviction.
3. Despite robust statutory frameworks like the NALSA Scheme, 2018, systemic hurdles such as high pendency rates and social stigma continue to obstruct substantive justice.
Introduction
Indian criminal jurisprudence has customarily conceptualized itself as a state instrument of adjudication of culpability of the accused and delivery of punishment. Within its dualistic adversarial model, the position of the crime victim has been that of an outer peripheral witness for the prosecution, without intrinsic rights or substantial rehabilitation avenues. However, in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the philosophy that victimology is a fundamental tenet of criminal jurisprudence emerged: justice is not achieved by concentrating only on the perpetrator of the crime, without also addressing the irreplaceable physical, psychological, and financial harm inflicted upon the person subjected to the victimization.
This analysis examines the rights of rape and acid attack survivors under the constitutional and criminal law framework of India. It explores the transformation of the criminal justice system from a punishment model to a restorative model, including a study on the transition from the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Victim’s Rights Jurisprudence in India: An Overview
The precedents of victim compensation cannot be considered a late modern tradition in India. In ancient Indian law books, there are provisions for compensation being paid to the victim; for example, the Manusmriti mentions that the victim has rights to compensation for the “cure” of the body that is harmed by an assailant. In spite of these early developments, colonial criminal law continued to be viewed mainly as state prosecution in the name of public order, silencing victims.
A victim-sensitive criminal procedural model developed only at mid-century, with the 1950s acting as a turning point. It had been pioneered by international social reformers like Margery Fry, and culminated in the 1985 United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power. This international instrument recognized victims’ rights to justice, to restitution, to compensation, and to assistance from the criminal justice system.
Judicial activism has played an important role in establishing victims’ rights as a constitutional obligation in India. The Supreme Court observed that under the Right to Life guaranteed by Article 21, the state has a constitutional liability to award compensation to victims of violation of their fundamental rights by state agencies. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer described victim reparation as the “vanishing point” of criminal law, a symptom of the apathy that early legal reforms were attempting to remedy. The 2003 Malimath Committee Report, which recommended putting the victim’s interests first, set the stage for the 2008 landmark CrPC amendment.
The constitutional foundation of victims’ rights also lies in the Directive Principles of State Policy. Article 41 obligates the State to provide public assistance in cases of need and disablement, which has been judicially extended to victims of violent crimes. Further, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 21 has expanded the “Right to Life” to include the right to live with dignity, requiring not only punishment of the offender but also rehabilitation of the survivor. This establishes a strong constitutional basis for reforms under the BNSS and BNS.
Comparative Procedural Framework for Compensation
The procedural provisions under the BNSS are largely similar to those of the CrPC, though it contains several modifications designed to fast-track trials and expand court proceedings.
| Procedural Aspect | CrPC, 1973 | BNSS, 2023 | Strategic Impact of Reform |
| Basic Compensation Power | Section 357 | Section 395 | Preserves the court’s power to award compensation from fines but emphasizes victim-centric outcomes. |
| State-Funded Schemes | Section 357A | Section 396 | Mandates a joint state-center scheme; empowers courts to recommend rehabilitation funds. |
| Specific Offense Compensation | Section 357B | Section 397 | Ensures compensation under state schemes is in addition to fines paid by the offender. |
| Free Medical Treatment | Section 357C | Section 398 | Mandates immediate first-aid/treatment in all hospitals for victims of specific crimes. |
| Treatment for Untraced Offenders | Implicit in 357A | Section 396(3) | Explicitly allows victims to apply for compensation even if the offender is unknown. |
The 2009 amendment to the CrPC introduced Section 357A, which made victim compensation independent of conviction. Earlier, compensation depended on the offender’s conviction and ability to pay fines, often leaving victims without relief. Section 396 of the BNSS continues this approach and strengthens the process by requiring compensation inquiries to be completed within two months by the Legal Services Authorities.
Acid Attack Provisions: Deterrence and Reparation
In the context of the BNS, Section 124 places acid attacks under a specific type of crime, rather than “grievous hurt”.
| Nature of Offense | BNS Section | Punishment and Relief | Statutory Intent |
| Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt by Acid | Section 124(1) | 10 years to Life + Fine | Fine must be “just and reasonable” to meet victim’s medical expenses. |
| Attempt to Throw Acid | Section 124(2) | 5 to 7 years + Fine | Criminalizes the act of throwing/attempting, even without severe injury. |
The BNS ensures that the fine collected under Section 124 is directly delivered to the victim. Through the BNS, the perpetrator is also responsible for medical expenses, which in cases of marital acid attack usually include multiple reconstructive surgeries costing over â‚ą3 lakhs each. The BNS definition of “acid” includes any corrosive or burning chemical substance to cover a wide range of agents.
Sexual Offenses: Consolidating and Strengthening Punishment
As for sexual crimes (Sections 63 to 72 BNS), the BNS appears to have increased the penalties. For instance, the BNS raised the age of major victims of gang rape from 16 to 18. Hence, all minors would fall within the category of maximum punishment, and the death penalty could be awarded for committing gang rape of a woman below the age of 18.
A key academic criticism of the BNS was the formation of Section 74 (formerly Section 354 IPC) regarding “assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty”. Despite being a decolonization effort, the BNS retained the term “modesty,” which was heavily criticized by the Justice Verma Committee for being a morality-based rather than a rights-based approach. Critics argued the term should have been replaced with “sexual assault” to connote a violation of bodily autonomy and dignity. As a result, State of Punjab v. Major Singh, which viewed modesty as an intrinsic attribute irrespective of age, continues to be followed.
NALSA Compensation Scheme, 2018: An In-Depth Review
The substantive law for awarding relief is contained in the NALSA Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/other Crimes – 2018, approved by the Supreme Court on 11 May 2018 to prevent compensation amounts from varying across states.
Eligibility and Scope of Relief: The NALSA Scheme extends to women victims or dependents (husbands, parents, grandparents, minor children) of crimes suffering loss and in need of rehabilitation. Covered offenses include rape, gang rape, acid attack, burns, and cruelty by husbands. The Supreme Court has also observed it as a guiding principle for awarding compensation to children under the POCSO Act.
Compensation Slabs:
| Category of Victimization | Minimum Limit (â‚ą) | Upper Limit (â‚ą) |
| Victims of Rape | 4,00,000 | 7,00,000 |
| Victims of Gang Rape | 5,00,000 | 10,00,000 |
| Loss of Life | 5,00,000 | 10,00,000 |
| Acid Attack (Face Disfigurement) | 7,00,000 | 8,00,000 |
| Acid Attack (Injury > 50%) | 5,00,000 | 8,00,000 |
| Pregnancy on account of Rape | 3,00,000 | 4,00,000 |
Under “Mandatory Reporting of FIRs,” a copy of the FIR must be sent immediately by the SHO to the Legal Services Authority for suo-moto interim relief. Acid attack survivors are to be paid interim relief of â‚ą1 lakh within 15 days of lodging the FIR, and a total of â‚ą3 lakhs within two months.
Judicial Precedents and Rehabilitation
In Laxmi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court recognized acid attacks as a grave form of violence and regulated the over-the-counter sale of acid. The Court mandated a minimum compensation of â‚ą3 lakhs and directed that survivors must be provided free medical treatment in both public and private hospitals. The 2015 decision in Parivartan Kendra v. Union of India responded to systemic failures in Bihar, awarding â‚ą13 lakhs to Dalit sisters and holding that â‚ą3 lakhs was inadequate for lifetime treatment. It also ordered that victims be included in the disability list for reservations in government services.
In Shri Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Miss Subhra Chakraborty, the Court held that rape is a “crime against the entire society” and a violation of Article 21. Crucially, the Court affirmed its power to direct interim compensation pending proceedings so survivors avoid “penury” while waiting for justice.
Legal Criticism: The Gap Between Law and Practice
Despite statutory progress, bureaucratic red tape remains an obstacle. Survivors often face rejection of claims due to documentation burdens and police verification requirements, which disproportionately affect marginalized communities. While every State has a Victim Compensation Scheme, implementation varies due to budget constraints. There is also a “Conviction Bias,” where authorities still wait for a trial outcome before granting aid.
The One-Stop Center (OSC) scheme, launched under the Nirbhaya Fund, has helped over 10 lakh women; however, monitoring groups show that 21-34% of allocated funds remain unused. This underuse highlights planning gaps in underserved areas.
Social stigma and secondary victimization also persist. Survivors often receive negative reactions from police and medical staff, who may blame victims for their clothing or lifestyle choices. Acid attack survivors in particular face harsh social rejection, often losing access to family, education, and jobs due to their appearance.
Empirical Landscape: Pendency and Conviction Data
NCRB 2023 data highlights failures in the criminal justice response:
| Statistical Metric (2023-2024) | Reported Value | Source/Context |
| Overall Conviction Rate (IPC) | ~54% | NCRB 2023 |
| Conviction Rate (Crimes vs Women) | ~30% | Ministry of Home Affairs |
| Pendency of Rape Cases | > 1.3 Lakh cases | NCRB 2023 |
| Acid Attack Conviction Rate | 16 out of 113 | NCRB 2023 |
Nearly 90% of acid attack cases were still pending trial as of 2022, aggravating the trauma of survivors.
Psychological and Vocational Rehabilitation: The Path Forward
Effective rehabilitation must tackle hidden wounds like anxiety, depression, and PTSD. Holistic psychosocial support, including counseling and peer support from organizations like the Chhanv Foundation, is vital. Economic empowerment through initiatives like the Sheroes Hangout Café helps restore dignity. While the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, allows job reservations, acquiring certificates remains difficult as the system relies on medical rather than sociological criteria for disfigurement.
Conclusion
The transition from the IPC to the BNS and BNSS reflects a significant shift towards victim-oriented justice. However, low conviction rates and continued attacks expose systemic failures. Justice requires more than procedural reform; it requires an institutional shift to recognize victims as rights-bearing individuals entitled to dignity. Bridging the gap demands administrative accountability, timely compensation, and a restorative approach that prioritizes both accountability and meaningful rehabilitation.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Lawscape.
The Lawscape — clear, practical legal insight for students and future lawyers.