SH. BODHISATTWA GAUTAM versus MISS SUBHRA CHAKRABORTY

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 731 · Decided: 15-12-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

SH. BODHISATTWA GAUTAM 
A 
v. 
MISS SUBHRA CHAKRABORTY 
DECEMBER 15, 1995 
[KULDIP SINGH AND S. SAGHIR AHMED, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article Jr!urisdiction-Victim need not personally approach the 
Cowt-Can be exercised suo motlt or on the basis of public interest litiga-
C 
tion-Fzmdamental rights can be enforced even against private bodies and 
individuals. 
Criminal Law : 
Indian Penal Code 1860: Section 376. 
Rape--Corroboration of the prosei:utrix not always necessary--Co1n-
pensation to rape victims-Court has jurisdiction to award interim compen-
sation during pendency of Criminal Case. 
D 
The respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner under E 
Sections 312/420/493/496/498-A, Indian Penal Code, 1860. The facts set out 
in the complaint indicated that there was initially a period of romance 
during which the petitioner used to visit the house of the respondent and 
on one occasion, he told her that he was in love with her and' ultimately 
succeeded, on the basis of his assurance to marry her, in developing sexual 
relationship with her with the tragic result that she became pregnant. 
While in that state, she persuaded the petitioner to marry her, but he, 
deferred the proposal on the plea that he had to take his parents' permis-
sion. He however, agreed to marry her secretly. Consequently, the 
petitioner took her before the God he worshiped and put Vermilion on her 
forehead and accepted .her as his lawfnl wife. In spite of the secret mar-
riage, he, through his insistence, succeeded in motivating her for an 
abortion which took place in a clinic. The respondent became pregnant 
second time and at the instance of the petitioner she had to abort again 
in a Nursing Home where the petitioner signed the consent paper by 
F 
G 
deliberately mentioning a false name. 
H 
731 
A 
B 
732 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
The petitioner tiled a petition in the High Court under Section 482 
of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint which w.s 
dismissed. The petitioner tiled a Special Leave Petition in this Court. This 
Court while dismissing the SLP further took suo motu notice to the facts 
of this case as narrated in the complaint and issued notice to the petitioner 
as to why he should not be asked to pay reasonable maintenance per month 
to the respondent during the pendency of the prosecution proceedings 
against him. 
The petitioner deniecl the allegations made against him in the com-
plaint and stated that his service having been terminated the question of 
C burdening him with the liability of paying maintenance to the respondent 
did not arise. 
D 
In the circumstances the question before this Court was whether any 
further order could be passed compelling the petitioner to pay main-
tenance to the respondent during the pendency of the Criminal Case 
against him. 
Disposing of the petition, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. This Court, as the highest Court of the country, has a 
E variety of jurisdiction. Under Article 32 of the Constitution, it has the 
jurisdiction to enforce the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitu-
tion by issuing writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibi-
tion, Quo-Warranto and Certiorari. Fundamental Rights can be enforced 
even against private bodies and Individuals. Even the right to approach the 
Supreme Court for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights under 
F 
Article 32 itself is a Fundamental Right. The jurisdiction enjoyed by this 
Court under Article 32 is very wide as this Court, while considering a 
petition for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed 
in Part III of the Constitution, can declare an Act to be ultra vires or beyond 
the competence of the legislature and has also the power to award compen-
G sation for the violation of the Fundamental Rights. [741-D-E] 
Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, AIR (1983) SC 1086 and Peoples' Union 
for Democratic Right (through its Secretary & Anr. v. Police Commissione1; 
Delhi Police HQs. & Anr., [1989] 4 SCC 730, referred to. 
H 
1.2. The right of the victim for compensation is recognised by provid-
BODHISATTWAv. SUBHRACHAKRABORTY 
733 
ing that it shall be awarded by the Court on conviction of the offender A 
subject to the finalisation of Scheme by the Central Government. If the 
Court trying an offence of rape has jurisdiction to award the compensation 
at the final stage, there is no reason to deny to the Court the right to award 
interim comp

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.