This study examines the legal and legislative framework for victim compensation in India, focusing on the Code of Criminal Procedure’s provisions and their interpretation by the courts, using data collected from lower courts in the state of Odisha. A robust framework to provide financial assistance to victims of crime has now been incorporated into section 357 (newly incorporated Bhratiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, i.e., BNSS, Section 395 of BNSS) of the “Code of Criminal Procedure 1973” (hereinafter CrPC) in accordance with the recommendations of the Law Commission. According to section 357 of the CrPC, the victim may only receive compensation from the court in appropriate cases, and upon conviction, the accused must pay the compensation himself. This provision gives judges extensive authority to decide on compensation based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. Furthermore, section 357-A CrPC (Section 396 BNSS), introduced in the 2009 amendment, also provides for compensation from state funds. Consequently, victim compensation has become standard practice, regardless of whether section 357 or section 357-A of the CrPC is invoked. Apart from these statutory provisions, there are several cases in which the Supreme Court has emphasised the significance of victim compensation, further elaborating on when and how the judiciary should use its discretion in granting compensation. This article examines and analyses how the judiciary has applied its discretion in interpreting and using the legislative provisions in the course of rendering victim justice. It examines the situations in which there are no guidelines in the statute to aid the court in assessing the amount payable and explores whether and how this gap has been addressed by the courts. The study also reviews several Supreme Court judgements that remind the criminal courts of the special powers vested in them to ensure complete and effective justice for the parties. Finally, the study assesses the implementation of these decisions by the lower courts in the state of Odisha to evaluate whether the judiciary’s intervention has been conducive to providing justice for the victim.