The court quashed the interim maintenance condition for the accused, emphasizing the need for a compensation board for victims of sexual assault.

1. The accused - petitioner is facing trial for offence under S.376 of the I.P.C. in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Valsad at Navsari. He was granted bail by order of the Addl. Sessions Judge dated 26-8-96. While granting bail, the learned Judge has imposed the condition that the accused - petitioners 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 S.482 read with S.439 of the Cr. P. C. 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 v. 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 dishonestly 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 S.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 victims of rape. The same reads as follows:
(1) The complainants of sexual assault cases should be provided with legal representation. It is important to have someone who is well acquainted with the criminal justice system. The role of the victim's advocate would not only be to explain to the victim the nature of the proceeding, to prepare her for the case and to assist her in the police station and in Court but to provide her with guidance as to how she might obtain help of a different nature from