payment of interim compensation to rape victims Shri Bodhisattwa gautam --VS-- Miss subhra chakraborty

 

PAYMENT OF INTERIM COMPENSATION TO

                       RAPE VICTIMS      

SHRI BODHISATTWA GAUTAM

--VS—

MISS SUBHRA CHAKRABORTY

[(1996) 1 SCC 490]

 

The present case refers to suo motu action taken by the Supreme Court of India. This case is a classic example of “damned by one’s own deed” whereby the respondent filed a Special Leave Petition against a criminal complaint filed by the petitioner against him which was dismissed by the court but on the facts of the same, a suo motu cognizance of “rape” being

violative of Article 21 was taken by the court and the respondent was hence ordered to pay interim compensation to the petitioner who alleged that the said respondent has committed various offences such as causing miscarriage, cheating, cruelty and other offences relating to marriage such as cohabitation by deceit, etc. against her in her criminal complaint. In the current case, the court has also discussed the plight of the rape victims and held that taking suo motu cognizance of violation of any fundamental right falls under the jurisdiction of the court under Article 32.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner filed a criminal complaint against the respondent in the Court of JMFC, Kohima, Nagaland. The facts of the said complaints in brief are as follows:

The current petitioner was a student of the Baptist College, Kohima whereby respondent was a lecturer. The respondent visited the petitioner’s residence for the first time on June 10, 1989 and after that he often visited the petitioner’s residence. Once in the month of November, 1989, respondent voluntarily told petitioner that he was in love with her and thus developed their love affair. The respondent with malafide intention gave false assurance of marriage to the petitioner and dishonestly procured sexual intercourse with her. On several occasions, the petitioner approached the respondent to get married to her but the latter deferred the same sometimes asking to cooperate till he gets a government job and sometimes saying that he was waiting for a formal consent from his parents.

During the course of their continuous affair, the petitioner got pregnant twice, once in September, 1993 and then in April, 1994. Being worried about such pregnancy, the petitioner pressurized respondent to get married to her, however the latter deferred the same since he was waiting for his parent’s permission. This resulted in quarrel between the two whereby the respondent opined for secret marriage to which the petitioner agreed and thus they got secretly married as on September 20, 1993. The respondent fraudulently convinced the petitioner to abort the child and the petitioner underwent an operation in the Putonou Clinic,

Kohima and aborted in October 1993. The complainant was forced to undergo abortion even

second time in the month of April 1994 in the Carewell Nursing Home at Dimapur. Noticeably, the respondent even furnished a false name to the said nursing home and signed the consent form in the name of Bikash Gautam of which the petitioner gained knowledge in 2nd week of February, 1995 while obtaining a certified copy of the same. On February 4,1995 the respondent joined as a lecturer in Government College named Cachar College and refused to accept the petitioner as his wife and abandoned her procuring the reason that his parents are not ready to accept the petitioner as their daughter-in-law. Eventually the petitioner filed a Criminal Case No. 1 of 95 u/s 312, 420, 493, 496, 498-A of IPC for grave cruel act of the respondent for dishonestly making the petitioner believe that their marriage was a valid marriage and compelled her for abortion, twice.

The respondent filed a petition u/s 482 of CrPC in the Gauhati High Court for quashing the complaints and the proceedings initiated on the grounds of the said allegations contending that there was no prima facie case made on such allegations. The High Court in its order dated May 12, 1995 dismissed the petition compelling the respondent to approach Supreme Court of India by way of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2675 of 95 which was dismissed by the order dated October 20, 1995.

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the said petition as mentioned above. However, it took suo motu notice of the facts of the said case and issued a show cause notice to the respondent to pay reasonable maintenance per month to the petitioner during the pendency of the prosecution proceedings against him.

The respondent filed an affidavit stating that the allegations were made only to harass and humiliate him and since he was unemployed there was no case of him paying any maintenance. However, the court rejected such contention and ordered the respondent to pay interim compensation of Rs. 1,000/- per month to the petitioner during the pendency of the Criminal Case No. 1 of 95 in the court of JMFC, Kohima, Nagaland.

ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE

I. Whether Supreme Court of India being the highest court of the country has the jurisdiction to compel the respondent to pay maintenance to the petitioner during the pendency of the criminal case?

Plea of the Petitioner

Since it is a Suo Motu petition there were no arguments presented by the petitioner.

Plea of the Respondent

The respondent filed an affidavit stating that the allegations were made only to harass and humiliate him and since he was unemployed there was no case of him paying any maintenance.

LEGAL ASPECTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE

Constitution of India

Article 32: Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by Part III of Constitution of India.

This Article confers 4 rights namely;

i. Right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of the fundamental rights,

ii. Power of Supreme Court to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights,

iii. Power to any other court to exercise above powers conferred to Supreme Court within its local limits through law made by the Parliament,

iv. The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.

In the current petition the Supreme Court of India took suo motu cognizance under Article 32.

[

Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

The Supreme Court of India in the current petition discusses Article 21 and the right conferred through it as- "Right to Life" does not merely mean animal existence but means something more, namely, the right to live with human dignity and elaborates on how Rape is crime against basic human rights and is also violative of the victim's most cherished Fundamental Rights, namely, the Right to Life and Personal Liberty contained in Article 21.

JUDGEMENT

The court in this suo motu petition ordered the respondent to pay interim compensation of Rs.1000/- every month to the petitioner during the pendency of the Criminal Case No. 1/95 in the court of JMFC, Kohima, Nagaland.

The Court, in detail, discussed various landmark precedents regarding Article 21 and also discussed the relaxation of the rule of corroboration of evidence of prosecutrix in an offence of rape u/s 376 of IPC and opined that by the virtue of Article 32, the Supreme Court of India has the jurisdiction to take suo motu action especially when it is related to Article 21 and other fundamental rights. The court held that the courts had inherent jurisdiction to award interim as well as final compensation for violation of fundamental rights.

The court held that taking suo motu action against violation of fundamental rights is covered under Article 32 of Constitution of India whereby a wide jurisdiction is offered to courts under writ jurisdiction. That the offence of rape or sexual assault is an infringement of Right to Life and Personal Liberty as guaranteed under Article 21.