Bodhisattva Gautam v.

Subhra Chakraborty, 1996

AIR 922

(Legal Reasoning and Logic)

Submitted by

Parth Mishra

Division: D PRN: 18010223032 Batch: 2018-23

Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Symbiosis International (Deemed University), PUNE

In

February, 2020

Under the guidance of

Ms. Charvi Kumar

Assistant professor

SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA

Symbiosis International (Deemed University)

CERTIFICATE

The Project entitled “Bodhisattva Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty,

1996 AIR 922” submitted to the Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA for Legal
Reasoning and Logic as part of internal assessment is based on my original
work carried out under the guidance of Ms. Charvi Kumar from 25th
December, 2019 to 5th February, 2020. The research work has not been
submitted elsewhere for award of any degree.

The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the research
work has been duly acknowledged.

I understand that I myself could be held responsible and accountable for

plagiarism, if any, detected later on.

Signature of the candidate

Date:
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 4
FACTS OF THE CASE................................................................................... 4
RELEVANT LAWS AND ISSUES ..................................................................... 4
JUDGEMENT .............................................................................................. 5
ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 5
Judge’s Reasoning ................................................................................... 5
Critique .................................................................................................. 6
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 7
INTRODUCTION
The case of Bodhisattva Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty serves as a landmark
judgement in Indian Judicial history as for the first time it was held that
compensation (interim and final) was under the jurisdiction of the court. The
case talks about consent and how if it is obtained by unfair means that is based
on false promises, then whether it’d constitute valid consent or not and whether
the act where it’d be proved that consent wasn’t valid, what remedies could be
available to the suffering party. The learner will analyze each part of the
judgement and provide criticism for the same.

The coram constituted of two judges namely Justice Kuldip Singh and Justice
Saiyed Saghir Ahmad. The judgement comprised of nine pages constituting
twenty paragraphs.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the present case, the accused not only induced the complainant and cohabited
“

with her, giving her a false assurance of marriage but also fraudulently got certain
marriage ceremony performed knowing fully well that the marriage was void. The
accused even committed the offence of miscarriage by compelling the complainant
to undergo abortion twice against her free will. The way the accused exploited the
complainant and abandoned her is nothing but an act of grave cruelty as the same
has caused serious injury and danger to the complainant’s health both mentally
and physically. The accused was a lecturer in a university where the complainant
was a student. The complainant was promised a marriage but the complainant
alleged that her consent was obtained on false promises and hence it shouldn’t be
seen as clear consent. ”

RELEVANT LAWS AND ISSUES

Following are the relevant laws pertaining to the case:

 Section 3121 of IPC: This section of the IPC talks about ‘causing miscarriage’
stating that whoever causes a woman to miscarry her child not in good faith
or in order to save her life shall be punished. It is important to note that a
woman who causes her to miscarry her child is also within the meaning of this
section.
 Section 4202 of IPC: This section talks about cheating and dishonestly
inducing delivery of property. It says that if anyone deceives a person to deliver
any property to anyone to change any part of valuable security shall be liable
for punishment of imprisonment or fine.
 Section 4933 of IPC: This section talks about ‘cohabitation caused by a man
deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage’, stating that any man who
causes a woman to believe that she is lawfully married to him when she is not
in order to cohabit with him or engage in sexual intercourse shall be liable for
punishment for imprisonment extending up to 10 years and also liable for fine.

1
Section 312, Indian Penal Code, 1860
2
Section 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860
3
Section 493, Indian Penal Code, 1860
 Section 4964 of IPC: This section talks about ‘marriage ceremony
fraudulently gone through without lawful marriage’, entailing that if a person
dishonestly or by a fraudulent intention, gets married knowing that he is not
getting lawfully married shall be liable for punishment and fine.
 Section 498-A5 of IPC: This section talks about ‘husband or relative of
husband of a woman subjecting he to cruelty’, if the person(s) being talked
about subjects a woman to cruelty, he would be liable for punishment and also
for fine. The term “cruelty” is any act which is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury to limb or health whether mental or
physical or harassment of the woman with the intention to coerce her to meet
any unlawful demands.

JUDGEMENT
Following was the Ratio given by the court in this judgement:

“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
compensation which should also be provided in the Scheme.”

ANALYSIS
Judge’s Reasoning
The judgement deals with a plethora of issues. The criminal case first went to
Gauhati High Court, wherein it refused to quash the proceeding in the criminal
case. The judge states that “Right to life” doesn’t only entail animal existence but
also entails the right to live with human dignity.

The court first established that both the parties had a consensual relationship but
the consent for the same was obtained fraudulently, so the question arises
whether such consent would be valid or not? The woman stated that she only
engaged in a physical relationship based on the promise that the parties would
eventually get married. After, continuous requests the accused agreed to secretly
marry the complainant, citing the reason that it needs to secret as his parents
won’t approve of the relationship and needed some more time to persuade them.
In this duration, he pestered the woman to abort the two children that she was
pregnant with as his parents wouldn’t approve of them as well. The marriage
ceremony was performed in front of the god of his belief and put Vermillion on her
forehead thus, consorting and consoling her causing her to believe that she was
legally married to him. The accused later denied it stating that the marriage was
not legal.

The court takes into account the fact that women in our country inherently belong
to a class of people who are in a disadvantaged position, keeping in mind the
numerous social barriers, who face unfair treatment on the hands of the men
involved in their life such as their husbands or their fathers, even though they
enjoy an equal constitutional status as men. The court when answering the
question of whether the consent was valid or not. It was observed that because

4
Section 496, Indian Penal Code, 1860
5
Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, 1860
the consent was obtained by fraudulent means and dishonest intention, it can’t be
valid. Hence, all the time that the parties were involved in sexual intercourse it
was without valid consent. Therefore, the accused can be held liable for rape,
violating the Right to Life under Article 216 which entails the right to life. Rape is
not only a crime against the woman bit is a wrong against the state. It destroys
the mental well-being of the woman. The court rightly stated that rape is more an
act aimed at degrading and humiliating women and less of just a sexual offence.
The rape laws in our country do not look at the social aspect of the offence and
are incompetent in order to bring about a change. The principal of “Corroboration
of prosecutrix” was used in this case citing Himachal Pradesh v. Raghubir Singh7
, which held that there is no legal compulsion to look for corroboration of the
evidence of the prosecutrix before recording an order of conviction. Conviction can
be recorded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if her evidence inspires
confidence and there is absence of circumstances which militate her veracity. The
jurisprudence behind this principle is the fact that many women still don’t report
the rapes to a right authority such as the police as they fear embarrassment in
the eyes of society and also injustice. They also fear embarrassment when getting
treatment by the doctors, the law enforcement personnel and/or the defense
attorneys. This fear needs too be done away with and hence this rule gives them
hope of justice. The judges set out certain broad parameters in the judgement in
assisting the victims of rape, such as providing them with the necessary legal
representation, to be provided at the police station, her name should remain
anonymous etc.

The subject-matter of the judgment was whether the court has the jurisdiction to
grant interim compensation to the victim during the pendency of the case. The
court holds that if court has the jurisdiction to grant compensation at the end of
the trial, there is no reason as to why it can’t happen when the case is going on
and the victim is still suffering. The jurisdiction shall extend to passing of any
order in the interest of justice.

Critique
In the judgement the judges point out that women need to be protected as they
are mothers, daughters and sisters to someone and serve and important role in
the society. I personally believe that we need to start seeing women as individuals
and not the roles that they play for the betterment of the society, the people need
to realise that they are humans first and deserve the same human rights no matter
what role they serve and who they are to someone. If an individual is not an asset
to the state, that doesn’t mean that they don’t have basic human rights. Liberty,
independence and freedom shouldn’t be given on the basis of what class you
belong to but should be unequivocally available to everyone. Patriarchy guides
people to believe that women serve a purpose which maybe has been the idea of
what human life is if there isn’t any purpose, but this needs to change if one needs
to ensure the equality and equal delivery of justice to everyone.

6
Article 21, the Constitution of India, 1947
7
Himachal Pradesh v. Raghubir Singh MANU SC 0503 (1993)
The judgement talks about consent but doesn’t go in detail as to what shall
constitute as “fraudulent means”. When a person gives their consent based on a
false promise, there should be exhaustive explanation as to what shall be covered
under the meaning of “consent”. Our laws don’t talk about consent in details and
that needs to change. The “Doctrine of Prosecutrix” however good it maybe in
promoting women to speak up and demand for justice, it can be easily misused
by a person as the corroboration to the evidence isn’t as important as in other
criminal cases. A person with a malign intention can go ahead and falsely
prosecute someone given the fact that can make the court believe in the veracity
of their statements. The court lists out the measures that need to be taken in
order to make justice more accessible to the victim but fails to realise the fact that
the bias that exists against the victims in the society has also been internalized in
the institutions that are supposed to provide relief. So, before giving them the
guidelines to improve the conditions conducive to justice, there needs to be a
reform in these institutions.

CONCLUSION
The judgement was detailed and covered all the aspects that were necessary for
delivering justice. However, the standing of women even in the highest Judiciary
in our country is seen an asset and not a human per se. The parameters described
by the judges helped the victims avail better justice and push them to pursue their
rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. SC emphasized about the crime of rape
“

and affirmed the view of many feminists and psychiatrists that rape is less a sexual
offence than an act of aggression aimed at degrading and humiliating women. ”

The major progress in this case was the fact that compensation would now fall
under the ambit of ‘Right to life. The compensation would be an integral aspect of
life with human dignity. Compensation to a victim of rape is undeniably important
“

for her rehabilitation, especially in a society where the victim of rape is treated
worse than the perpetrator. This not only helps the victim financially but also helps
her in retaining a normal life in society.
”