MUKESHBHAI NANUBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused petitioner is facing trial for offence under Sec. 376 of the IPC in the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Valsad at Navsari. He was granted bail by order of the Addl. Sessions Judge dated 26.8.1996. While granting bail, the learned Judge has imposed the condition that the accused petitioner shall pay Rs. 700/- per month as compensation to the prosecutrix-Ranjanben till the disposal of the case. The petitioner has approached this Court under Sec. 482 read with Sec. 439 of the CrPC to modify the order dated 26.8.1996 and to quash and set aside the said condition.

(2.) The facts of the case is that on 18.8.1996, a complaint was lodged at Police Station, Valsad Rural stating that Ranjanben was raped by the accused. It is also alleged that the accused promised to marry with the prosecutrix. However, when she informed about her pregnancy, the accused betrayed her. The Trial Judge, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bodhisattwa Gautam vs. Subhra Chakraborty, reported in AIR 1996 SC 922, while granting bail pending the trial imposed the impugned condition.

(3.) In Bodhisattwa's case (Supra), the prosecutrix-Subhra Chakraborty (hereinafter referred to as 'S') was a student of a college at Kohima in the year 1989, where the accused Bodhisattwa Gautam (hereinafter referred to as 'B') was a lecturer in that college. The accused 'B' first time visited the house of 'S' in June 1989. Thereafter often he used to visit her residence and as a Teacher, he was respected by 'S' and also by other family members including the parents. During the course of the visits, 'B' developed intimacy with 'S'. The accused 'B', however, with mala fide intention to practise deception, giving false assurance of marriage and thereby dishonsetly procured sexual intercourse with her. The accused 'B' often used to induce the complainant to have biological contact with him, but whenever he was approached by the complainant to complete the marriage ceremony, the accused 'B' used to very cleverly avoid on one or the other pretext. In 1993, he, however, agreed to marry her secretly. Consequently, in September 1993, 'B' took her to a temple and married her. In spite of the secret marriage, he motivated her for abortion. It is stated that during this period she became pregnant twice and there was abortion at the instance of the accused 'B'. Subsequently, accused 'B' abandoned 'S' asking her to forget all her dreams. On this, a case was registered against the accused 'B' for offence under Secs. 312/420/493/496/498-A of Indian Penal Code. The accused filed petition before the High Court seeking direction to quash the FIR on the ground that even if the allegation to be true on its face value, it does not constitute any offence. The petition was rejected by the High Court. The petitioner, thereafter, approached the Apex Court. The Apex Court, after considering various cases took note of the fact that in recent time, there has been an increasing violence against women. It was also noticed that in addition to the trauma of the rape itself the victim have had to suffer further agony during legal proceedings. In this background, the court indicated broad parameters in assisting the victim of rape. The same reads as follows :