Batch 1

Tanya Mittal (500122126)

Janvi Ahluwalia (500121515)
Shubhi Goyal (500122127)
 CASE ANALYSIS
Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 2 SCC 143 (Mathura rape case)

Facts of the case

The prosecution claims that the appellants raped Mathura, a girl aged between 14 and 16, at
the police station. After her brother Gama's untimely passing, Mathura supported herself and
worked alongside him for their income. During her time at Nunshi, she developed a close
relationship with her nephew Ashok, which resulted in their desire to get married. On March
26, 1972, Gama filed a complaint claiming that Nunshi, her spouse, and Ashok had
kidnapped Mathura. Once statements were gathered, Gama was dispatched to obtain
Mathura's birth records.
Throughout this period, the appellants compelled Mathura to remain at the station. Ganpat,
referred to as appellant No. 1, sexually violated her, while Tukaram, appellant No. 2, under
the influence of alcohol, fondled her closely but did not succeed in raping her. Doubt
emerged among Nunshi, Gama, and Ashok as they observed the police station's door shut and
the darkness within. They shouted for assistance, drawing attention. After a medical check-up
on March 27, the physician discovered no physical injuries on Mathura; nonetheless, semen
was found on her attire and appellant No. 1’s pajamas, suggesting an assault.

Issues of the case

The main issue revolved around whether the victim agreed to the sexual activity willingly or
if she was forced into it.
• Did the minor girl provide consent to the act?
• Will the appellants face charges under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code?
• Does the act committed by the police officer constitute rape as outlined in the relevant
section of the IPC?
• Are the reasons for the acquittal of the police officer by the Session Court deemed valid?

Analysis
Decision of sessions judge :-
The session judge found the accused not guilty, stating that the event was consensual
intercourse instead of rape. He depicted Mathura as knowledgeable about sexual activities,
indicating she agreed to have sex with Ganpat, and implied that the semen on her clothing
resulted from earlier relations. Nonetheless, he ascribed the semen found on Ganpat's
garments to "nocturnal emissions," revealing a double standard. Even with Dr. Shastrakar's
proof indicating Mathura was between 14 and 16 years old, the judge considered it
insufficient, alleging that Mathura invented a rape narrative to seem virtuous in Ashok's eyes.
His ruling exposed a misogynistic tone, branding Mathura a "stunning liar" and diminishing
her reliability.
Decision of Bombay High Court ( Nagpur bench) :-
In 1975, the Bombay High Court established an important difference between passive
submission and consent in the case of Mathura. Considering that the defendants were
unfamiliar to her and her brother had recently lodged a complaint at that police station, the
court found Mathura's statement to be passive, shaped by fear of potential harm. The
detainment of Mathura by the constables and her subsequent revelation to her family after the
event indicated a clear absence of consent. The lack of semen on vaginal smears was
observed, which was linked to a delay in the examination and potential washing. The court
highlighted that simply resigning under duress does not equal consent. In the end, the High
Court reversed the acquittal, confirming that Mathura had been raped and stating that any
intention for sexual relations came from the accused, not from her.
Judgement of Supreme Court :-
In 1979, the Supreme Court reversed a conviction, exonerating the defendant after
concluding that the sexual act was consensual. The Court observed that Mathura's body
showed no signs of injury, suggesting neither resistance nor distress was present. It
mentioned Section 375 of the IPC, outlining the criteria that define rape. The Court indicated
that consent should be deduced from the context, and absence of physical harm alone does
not establish non-consent. It underscored the prosecution's responsibility to prove its case and
pointed out contradictions in the victim's statements, suggesting that simply being at the
location does not equate to guilt. Evaluating the credibility of witnesses is essential.
Conclusion
Aftermath of the case
The ruling in the Mathura Rape Case triggered major protests from advocates and attorneys,
who called for immediate changes to current laws, alleging that the courts made critical
mistakes. A major issue was the reliance on obsolete medical evidence, including the two-
finger test, which has been condemned for its inadequate scientific basis and intrusive
characteristics. Even with its problematic use in sexual assault cases, the Supreme Court
rejected it as "weak evidence.
" Furthermore, the court placed excessive demands on Mathura to substantiate her claim,
ignoring the power disparities present in custodial rape situations. Rather than tackling the
officers’ misconduct and the infringement of Mathura's rights, the court emphasized her
character, unjustly implying she had given consent because of her previous experiences.
This attitude of blaming the victim was widespread, resulting in public fury over viewed
unfairness. Subsequent to this case, the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1983 was passed,
adding Section 228A to the Indian Penal Code, which sought to safeguard the identities of
victims in cases involving sexual offenses. Offenders may face up to two years of
imprisonment and penalties, with particular exceptions noted for law enforcement and the
victims, highlighting the necessity of preserving the dignity and privacy of victims within the
legal system.

The modification to India's legal system greatly affected laws regarding sexual assault,
bringing alterations to the Indian Evidence Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It
established strict penalties for crimes such as custodial rape, which is now punishable by a
minimum of seven years in prison. Crucially, the responsibility to prove innocence fell to the
offender after sexual intercourse was confirmed, strengthening safeguards for victims by
guaranteeing confidentiality of their identities and allowing trials to be held in private.
Following the court's management of the Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra case, in which a
young orphan named Mathura was sexually assaulted by police, legal educators wrote a letter
to Chief Justice Yeshwant Vishnu Chandrachud. Their worries focused on the court's neglect
in acknowledging Mathura's challenging situation and the disparity in power with her
attackers.
They condemned the choice for reinforcing archaic ideas of consent, suggesting that it
overlooked fundamental human rights and the necessity for equitable justice. The educators
encouraged a reassessment of the ruling to strengthen trust in the judicial system's capacity to
safeguard at-risk groups and highlighted the significance of tackling gender bias and consent
issues in legal processes. They requested an evaluation by a more extensive panel of judges
to guarantee that justice is delivered appropriately and with respect for survivors.
Critical Analysis
The verdicts from the Session Court and Supreme Court reveal a significant shortcoming in
the handling of sexual assault cases, as they incorrectly rely on the absence of physical
injuries on the victim. Rape can happen without signs of physical injury, and the victim's
account should not be disregarded due to this lack. The idea that a victim's inaction signifies
consent is fundamentally misguided, since numerous individuals freeze due to fear or shock
when assaulted. The courts frequently attribute responsibility to the victim rather than
holding the assailant responsible. Moreover, lenient consequences for juvenile offenders
diminish the seriousness of their offenses. Although legislation aimed at safeguarding victims
has advanced, significant concerns remain regarding the adjudication of these cases.