Introduction:-
Popularly known as The Mathura Rape Case, the case of Tukaram and Others vs. State of Maharashtra is undeniably a significant event in the history of rape laws in India; witnessing the problem of custodial rape, the case led to several conflicts and is one of the prime factors which led to the radical changes in the rape laws of our country. The judgment of this case was highly controversial due to its sexist tone and falsities in logic, language, and law.
Background: -
The case revolves around three individuals, Mathura, Tukaram, and Ganpat. Mathura was a young orphan employed as a laborer in Nushi’s house; during this period, she developed sexual relations with Ashok, the son of Nushi’s sister, and both had plans for marriage.
On 26 March 1972, Gama, the brother of Mathura, filed a report stating that Ashok, Nushi, and other relatives kidnapped Mathura. Their statements were recorded, and the whole process was finished around 10:30 pm; everybody started to head out of the police, but Ganpat (who was the Constable and the first appellant) asked Mathura to be in the police station; after that, he closed the doors, turned off the lights, and forcefully had sexual intercourse with her in the washroom. The second appellant, Tukaram (Ganpat’s colleague), fondled her private parts, but due to his heavy intoxication, he could not rape her.
On 27 March, Dr. Shastrakar examined her; the doctor was the individual who told Mathura to file an FIR. After a long struggle, in 1979, the Supreme Court decided to favor the appellants.
Legal Proceedings: -
● Sessions Judge
The Sessions Judge labelled this case as ‘consensual sexual intercourse’. The logic behind this particular statement was that since Mathura was habitual to sex, there is a possibility it was all with her consent. Section 375(6) of the IPC asserts that whether consensually or not, sex with a woman below the age of 16 is qualified as rape. The medical evidence proving Mathura was between the age of 14 to 16 was declared imprecise.
● Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court declared it a case of passive submission given subject to the threat of death or injury. This statement was established due to two reasons. Firstly, the appellants had specially asked her to stay back, and secondly, she narrated the incident to her family immediately, displaying an evident lack of consent. The high court convicted Tukaram of one-year imprisonment and Ganpat with five years of imprisonment. The high court rightly pointed out the gaps the Sessions court judge missed. Tukaram and Ganpat appealed to the Supreme Court against the conviction orders passed by the Bombay High Court.
● Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India in 1979 overruled the judgment and also labelled it as a case of consensual intercourse as there were no marks of injury and not a single proof of her resistance. The public highly condemned this statement, and it became a significant matter of controversy.
Aftermath: -
The case resulted in the passing of The Criminal Law Amendment Act in 1983. Under this, Section 114 (A) of the Indian Evidence Act was amended, stating that if the victim lacked consent, the court would presume it was without her consent. There was an amendment in Section 376 of the IPC, which made custodial rape a punishable offence with a minimum imprisonment of 7 years. The amendment also banned the publication of victims’ identities and held that rape trials should be conducted as in-camera proceedings. Many believe that all these amendments were not a happy ending, rather than it was the start of a revolution in the sphere of rape laws.