TukaRam vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 September, 1978

Mathura's Gang Rape Case. The day of 26th March 1972, considered as the black day in the history of empowerment of women. On 26 March 1972, Mathura rape case became the episode of custodial rape in India, where Mathura,a young harijan girl, was badly raped by two policemen on the compound of Desaiganj Police Station in Chandrapur district, of Maharashtra as it led to amendments in Rape Law via TheCriminal Law Amendment of 1983. The judgment is given by Justice Jaswant Singh, Kalisam and Khosal who were highly criticized by the people for their legal fallacies and the interpretation of the law for ambiguous and the sexiest tone. Then after the Supreme Courtacquitted the accused, there was a huge public outcry and protests against the laws of the country.

FACTS OF THE CASE:
A young tribal girl named Mathura lived with her brother Gama She worked as the laborer at the Nushi's house for the employment. During the period of employment she developed the sexual relations with the son of Nushi's sister, Ashok. They decided to get married. Her brother filed a complaint to the police ensuring that Mathura had been kidnapped by Nushi, her husband Laxman and Ashok on 26th of March, 1972. The statements of Ashok and Mathura were recorded at about 10:30 P.M., and the head constable Baburao asked all the persons to leave witha direction to Gama to bring a copy of the entry regarding the birth date of Mathura. Theappellants also asked Mathura to stay at the police station only. Thereafter closing the doors andturning off the lights inside, Ganpat, the appellant No.1 took Mathura to the washroom and rapedher. After the Ganpat was done, the appellant No. 2 Tukaram, tried to rape her but failed due to
highly intoxication but touched her private parts.

After the incident Mathura was examined by the doctor and found no injury on her body. Theexaminer did not found the symptoms of semen, even on the pubic hair. The semen however found on the girl's clothes. After examining her doctors has also estimated the age of Mathura as between 14 to 16 years.

JUDGMENT BY THE SESSION JUDGE:
The session court held that both of the accused are not liable for the offence of rape because the intercourse between the girl and accused was a “consensual sexual intercourse” as the girl was habituated to the sexual intercourse. And also she was scared of Ashok and Nushi that is why she had not made any sound. The district judge therefore acquitted both of the appellants.

JUDGMENT BY THE HIGH COURT:
The Bombay High Court has reversed the order of the Session Court and held that the sexualintercourse was a rape and not a consensual sexual intercourse. It is proved by the evidence thatsince, both the accused were stranger to Mathura, how she can have sexual intercourse with them to fulfill the sexual needs of her.

JUDGMENT BY THE SUPREME COURT:
The appellant contended for the special leave. And Supreme Court again converted the decision of the High Court and acquitted the accused. It was agreed with the decision of the Session Judgeand held that this was a case of consensual sexual intercourse. On this spot the Supreme Court more added that as “no marks of injury” were found on Mathura’s body there was “no battle” on her part and since she did not “raise an alarm” for help she “consented to sex".

ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT:
1. Whether there was consent of girl?
2. Whether the appellant No.1 and No.2 will be charged for Section 376 of Indian Penal Code?
3. Whether the act of police officer will amount to rape?
4. Whether the grounds of acquittal of the police officer by the Court are valid?