INTRODUCTION

The Mathura rape case, officially known as Tukaram and Anr vs State of Maharashtra, marks a watershed point in India’s legal history involving sexual abuse. On 26 March 1972, two police officers allegedly raped Mathura, a young Adivasi girl aged 14 to 16, at Desaiganj Police Station in Maharashtra. 

The investigation began when Mathura’s brother filed a police report accusing a boy named Ashok and his family of kidnapping his underage sister. After bringing all parties to the station for questioning, the police released Mathura’s relatives but imprisoned her. During this moment, two police officers allegedly assaulted her. 

The Sessions Court acquitted the defendants at the initial trial, casting doubt on Mathura’s reliability and implying that she had consented. The Bombay High Court overturned the decision, condemning the officers and underlining that passive compliance out of fear does not constitute consent. The Supreme Court eventually acquitted the defendants, seeing Mathura’s lack of physical resistance as implied agreement. 

This decision generated countrywide demonstrations and debates, revealing systemic flaws in handling sexual abuse and the legal definition of consent. The public outcry prompted important legal revisions, including the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1983, which added provisions to better protect victims of custodial rape and moved the burden of proof to the guilty in such situations. The Mathura rape case remains a watershed moment in India’s legal and feminist movements, highlighting the need for a more nuanced definition of consent and the significance of protecting victims from custodial abuse.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Mathura, a teenage girl aged 14-16, lived with her brother Gama after her parents died. Both were workers, and Mathura used to work at Nunshi’s residence. While working, she developed an intimate relationship with Nunshi’s nephew Ashok, and the two decided to marry. On March 26, 1972, Gama reported Mathura’s kidnapping to the Desai Gunj police station, accusing Ashok, Nunshi, and Nunshi’s husband, Laxman. Around 9 p.m., all of them were summoned to the police station, where Head Constable Baburao recorded their statements. At 10.30 p.m., Baburao asked everyone to leave the police station and left. 

As Mathura was leaving, Constable Ganpat requested her to accompany him to a nearby latrine, where he unfastened her underpants and examined her private parts with a torch. He then raped her in the rear of the police station. Ganpat fled after raping her. Constable Tukaram sexually abused her by fondling her private parts, but was unable to rape her due to intoxication. Mathura later filed a FIR following the advice of Dr. Khume, who initially examined her. Dr. Kamal Shastrakar examined her at 8 p.m. on March 27, 1972, and discovered no injuries on her body. Semen was also found on Mathura and Ganpat’s garments. 

ISSUES RAISED

• Did Mathura consent to the sexual intercourse based on the circumstantial evidence given in court? 
• Was Mathura under the age of 16 years at the time of the incident? 
• Was Mathura raped by Ganpat and sexually molested by Tukaram? 

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the appellant

• The appellants, Tukaram and Ganpat, claimed that Mathura consented to the sexual intercourse and that no unlawful force was used during the act. 
• The lack of bodily injury or obvious displays of defiance was claimed as evidence that Mathura had not opposed the conduct in issue, and this was understood as agreement. The argument was used as proof that Mathura was not opposed to the act. 
• They maintained that Mathura’s behavior following the experience showed no signs of trauma or disagreement, which supported their contention that the sexual interaction was fully voluntary. 

Arguments on behalf of the respondent

• The State of Maharashtra, the defendant, claimed that the victim, Mathura, made genuine and trustworthy declarations. They emphasized that the victim’s account of the incident was corroborated by the facts given and should be considered credible. The defendant claimed that whatever evidence was available was sufficient to determine the crime of rape. 
• They claimed that medical evidence and the victim’s statements were sufficient to justify the penalty. The respondent argued that the sexual encounter was not voluntary. They emphasized that the evidence proved that Mathura did not tolerate sexual behavior, which was a critical aspect in establishing the charge of rape. 
• The defendant upheld the prescribed techniques used in this case, arguing that the trial court’s conclusion was suitably based on the evidence and applicable legal requirements and that the proper procedure was followed. 
• The response refuted the accused’s allegations that the incident was fabricated or that there was inadequate evidence. They stressed that the prosecution’s position was grounded in reasonable legal standards and solid evidence.

JUDGMENT

In 1979, the Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision and acquitted the accused, agreeing with the Sessions Judge that the encounter entailed consensual intercourse. The Supreme Court highlighted the absence of bodily injury and resistance as signs of consent. 

The court cited Section 375 of the IPC, which defines rape and specifies when intercourse constitutes rape, including lack of permission and consent obtained via terror. The court said that fear must be defined as fear of death or damage, not simply fear of authority persons. The court also emphasized the burden of proof in criminal trials, requiring the prosecution to establish all elements beyond a reasonable doubt. 

The Supreme Court in the Mathura Rape Case found contradictions in Mathura’s testimony concerning the individuals involved, casting doubt on her allegations’ veracity. The court emphasized the need to carefully examine witnesses’ reliability and evidence. The court ruled that the lack of resistance and absence of injuries meant agreement, resulting in the accused’s acquittal.

CONCLUSION

This story highlights our society’s orthodox view of women’s rights and how some in positions of authority misuse them. To begin, I criticize the Sessions Court for making negative judgments about Mathura’s character in its verdict. The Apex Court then agreed with the Sessions Judge. According to the Sessions Court’s ruling, Mathura was a’shocking liar’ whose evidence was a ’tissue of lies’. They also speculated that she may have fabricated the narrative of rape to avoid upsetting her lover, Ashok. The court argues that Mathura was ‘habituated’ to sex and dismisses the presence of semen because she was tested 20 hours after the occurrence and might have had sex with Ashok, whom she was ‘ very much in love with’. The court considers Ganpat’s presence of semen on his pants to be advantageous, as it suggests he may have had sex with someone other than Mathura. The court criticizes Mathura’s recurrent sexual behavior but does not designate Ganpat as such. 

The Apex Court dismisses Mathura’s testimony that she raised alarms and screamed for help as a ‘concoction’, but accepts her testimony that she was leaving the police station with her brother Gama. They also criticize her for not resisting when a ‘person in authority’ grabbed her in front of Gama. The court deemed the intercourse a ‘peaceful affair’ because of Mathura’s lack of injuries but failed to consider the need for a medical examination of Ganpat as well. The court argues that Mathura had free consent under Section 375 due to no fear of death or harm. However, poor laborers who are unaware of their rights may struggle to determine if a threat to their lives exists. She feared the ‘authorities’ of the country and complied with them out of terror, but does this fear of death invalidate her consent? The court did not consider Mathura’s age estimate of 14-16 years by Dr. Kamal Shastrakar as sufficient evidence to apply section 375 (5) of the IPC, which states that sexual intercourse with someone under 16 years old, with or without consent, constitutes rape. 

Following the Mathura Rape Case, notable lawyers and campaigners launched a series of demonstrations. They felt the case exposed significant vulnerabilities in the justice system and were dissatisfied with how the Supreme Court handled it. The two-finger test was deemed inadequate for evaluating sexual assault accusations due to its intrusive nature and technical problems. One of the most significant things was this. Despite its widespread use at the time, this test lost part of its significance in demonstrating rape since the Court dismissed it as insufficient evidence. 

Some claimed that the Court should have considered the power dynamics in work in institutional rape cases when imposing its expectations on Mathura. Instead of focusing on the misbehavior of the police officers and Mathura’s violated rights, the Court incorrectly questioned her consent and previous sexual behavior, implying that her involvement should be assumed. 

As a result, in 1983, lawmakers in India enacted Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code as part of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, with the goal of protecting victims’ privacy while transferring the burden of proof to those culpable. This Act also imposed more severe punishments for custodial rape, as well as mandatory in-camera rape trials. Furthermore, in an open letter emphasizing the importance of civil rights and judicial impartiality, law professors urged for a rethinking of the case.