TUKARAM AND ORS. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (MATHURA RAPE CASE)

CASE COMMENTARY

TUKARAM AND ORS. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (MATHURA RAPE CASE)

 

·       Case Details

Title of case: Tukaram and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra

Citation of the case: AIR 1979 SC 185

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Koshal, A.D., Koshal, AD.,Singh, Jaswant, Kailasam, P.S.

Petitioner: Tuka Ram and others

Respondent: State of Maharashtra

Date of judgement: 15^th September 1978

Statutes referred: Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 34,354,375,3776

 

·       Introduction -

The Tukaram and Ors v. State of Maharashtra, famously known as the Mathura Rape Case is a landmark judgement that causedsignificant modifications to the laws pertaining to rape in India. This case-initiated vehemence and unresolved disagreements. The case revolved around the custodial rape of a young girl, named Mathura. The final judgements of the case were delivered by Justice Jaswant Singh, Kaisalam and Koshal. These judgements were criticised big-time for its sexist and ambiguous tone with multiple legal and logical fallacies. The judgement was criticised heavily and was challenged by four distinguished professors who wrote an open letter to the CJI to rehear the case.

·       Facts of the Case -

Mathura, a young orphan belonging to the Adivasi community was living with her brother, Gama. Mathura’s parents had died when she was a young child. Gama and Mathura worked as labourers at the house of Nushi. During her employment, she met Nushi’s nephew, Ashok. Ashok and Mathura developed an intimate relationship and decided to get married.

On 26^th March 1972, Gama, the brother of Mathura lodged a complaint at the Desai Gunj Police Station claiming that Mathura had been kidnapped by the members of the Nushi house. The statements were recorded by the Head Constable Baburao. All the parties who were involved, including Nushi, Ashok and other relatives appeared at the police station. At around 10:30pm, everyone started to leave the police station. However, the appellants asked Mathura to stay back while the others were directed to move out.

The first appellant, Ganpat asked Mathura to wait and began to close the doors. He took her into a latrine and raped her and further dragged her to a Chhapri on the back side and raped her again. Appellant number 2, Tukaram came and began fondling with her private parts but was not able to rape her as he was heavily intoxicated.

While this was going on inside the police station, Nushi, Gama, and Ashok grew suspicious and started attracting crowd by shouting. On coming out of the police station, Mathura informed everyone on what happened and henceforth, a complaint was filed against the rapists. An FIR was filed against the two police constables on advice by Dr.Khume who examined her post the incident. It was also noticed that Dr.Khume observed no injuries on her and also did not detect any semen in her pubic hair and vaginal smear slides a well. However, it was detected on the girl’s clothes. It was also noticed that Mathura was between the age of 14-16 and her hymen had already revealed old ruptures.

·       Issues raised -

1.     Whether the appellants were guilty under Section 345 and 376 if the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

2.     Whether the sexual intercourse was consented, out of free will, coercion or out of fear?

3.     Whether all the ingredients and evidence were proved?

 

·       Contentions -

-       Arguments from the Appellants

The appellants filed an appeal against the High-Court decision stating that there was no direct evidence or proof that Mathura had confessed to the sexual-act, this had to be deducted from the circumstances that the girl was put in. It was also said that the girl gave her “unrepentant submission” and the sexual act was not because of any kind of coercion. There were also no signs of harm on her body, which proved that the intercourse was peaceful, and the claim of stiff resistance was false and fabricated. The appellants also said that the claim that Mathura was screaming loudly was also fabricated and there was no proof for the same. The HC also said that her assent to the act of sexual intercourse was due to fear did not equal to consent in the eyes of the law.

-       Arguments from the prosecution

The prosecution claimed that on March 1972, the appellants raped and sexually assaulted Mathura. It was also said that Mathura felt powerless in front of the police officers due to their dominant nature and their authority and hence she could not resist much as she was scared. One other argument was that the lights at the police station were switched off and the doors were closed shut. The fact that they had asked her stay back alone at the police station and everyone else were asked to leave the station once the Head Constable left.

 

·       Judgement -

The Sessions Judge acquitted the accused claiming that the sexual intercourse was consented in nature. It was also claimed that the semen which was found on Mathura’s clothes were someone else’s and not of the police officers and even if it was the officer’s, it was due to nightly discharges and not due to the intercourse. In the judge’s words, the story was false, and Mathura was “a hocking liar whose testimony was riddled with falsehood and improbabilities.” This was further appealed at the Bombay High Court, where the difference between passive submission and consent was established. The Judge claimed that since the officers were in position of authority, if Mathura resisted them, it could be detrimental to her and her family. The fact that the station doors were shut, lights turned off and her instantly narrating the incident to her family shows the lack of consent. The accused further appealed this to the Supreme Court of India in the year 1979. The court overturned the conviction and acquitted the accused. The SC squashed the judgement of the High Court and said that this was a case of consensual sexual intercourse and not a rape. The SC also noticed that there were no injury marks on Mathura’s body hence it was deducted that there was no resistance shown on her part and hence consented to the sexual intercourse. Therefore, the accused were acquitted of rape charges and were let to walk free.

 

·       Aftermath of the Judgement -

The case resulted in the Amendment of the Criminal Law Act being passed in 1983. The amended act now stated that if the victim does not consent to sexual intercourse, then the Court would presume that she did not consent. The amendment also banned the publication of victims’ identities and held that rape trials should be conducted as in-camera proceedings. There have also been several judgements post the 1983 Amendment Act that have been successful in serving justice to the victims.