Facts in Brief

The Respondent was a student of Baptist College, Kohima, where the Appellant was a lecturer. The Appellant used to visit the Respondent’s home often, and voluntarily confessed his love for her. The Respondent, blinded by the false assurances of marriage given by the Appellant, agreed to have a conjugal relationship with him, and as a result thereof became pregnant.

Thereupon, the Respondent — being afraid of a social scandal — started pressurising the Appellant to marry her. Upon this, the Appellant “married” her in front of the God he worshipped in his home, by applying sindur to her forehead and accepting her as his legally wedded wife.

After these incidents, the accused kept trying to convince the Respondent that she should get the child aborted; and on her not being convinced, he used the plea that his parents would not be convinced to accept her as their daughter-in-law if they had the child. As a result, the Respondent was compelled to undergo an abortion. The same story was repeated in April 1994, and here the Appellant even misrepresented himself as “Bikash Gautam” at the nursing home in Dimapur where the Respondent was taken for her abortion.

The Respondent believed herself to be the legally wedded wife of the Appellant in full faith, and never once questioned the excuses given by the Appellant. On hearing that the Appellant was going to Silchar to join the job at the Government College that they had both been waiting for — so that they could make their marriage known in public — the Respondent went to meet him, to be taken along with him; whereupon the Appellant refused, point blank, to accept their relationship.

Thereafter, the Respondent brought an action against the Appellant on the grounds of criminal offences under the Indian Penal Code, Sections 312, 420, 493, 496 and 498A. On these facts, a Special Leave Petition was filed by the Appellant against the order of the High Court of Assam at Guwahati, which had declined to dismiss the criminal case filed by the Respondent against the Appellant.

Arguments

The Appellant sought to evade the cases on the grounds that: (a) the Appellant was unemployed, his service having been terminated from the Government College at Silchar; and (b) the whole case had no factual basis, but was cooked up to defame him.

Judgment

The Supreme Court, upholding the decision of the High Court, refused to quash the proceedings of the pending criminal case and dismissed the petition, while also awarding an interim maintenance of ₹1,000 per month to the Respondent.

The question before the Court — whether the Court was competent to pass any further orders in the present case and compel the present Appellant to pay interim maintenance to the Respondent during the pendency of the criminal trial — was decided in the affirmative, on the ground that the Supreme Court enjoyed a wide range of jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution, which included the power to award compensation for the violation of Fundamental Rights as well.

The Court also declared that the crime of “rape” was not only a penal cause of action, but one that was a crime against basic human rights, and was a violation of the most cherished Right to Life of the victim. Therefore, relying upon the decision in Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 14, the Court concluded that while trying a case relating to the penal offence of rape, a court had the jurisdiction to award compensation at the final stage; and there was also no bar to awarding interim compensation.

For the Common Man

This case lays down the law that interim compensation can be awarded to victims of rape during trials, considering the gravity of the situation and in the interests of justice. It thus marks a progressive shift in criminal law jurisprudence, wherein a victimological approach has been introduced into the adjudicatory process.