State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar

Case Name:State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar

Citation: AIR 1991 SC 207; 1991 SCR (1) 57; (1991) 1 SCC 57

Court: Supreme Court of India

Judges: Justice K. Ramaswamy

Bench Type: Single Judge Bench

Date: 8th November, 1990

Appellant: State of Maharashtra (through the Public Prosecutor)

Respondent: Madhukar Narayan Mardikar (Accused in the rape case)

Facts of the Case

The respondent, Madhukar Narayan Mardikar, was charged with raping a woman who was a prostitute. The defendant was found guilty of rape in the trial court under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Nonetheless, the High Court of Bombay acquitted the accused on the grounds that the prosecutrix was a prostitute and a woman of easy virtue, and that As a result, the law demanded confirmation of her evidence. The High Court determined that the conviction was not maintainable in the absence of supporting evidence.
The State of Maharashtra, upset by the acquittal, petitioned the Supreme Court, questioning the High Court’s judgment and the rationale supporting it. A sex worker’s testimony has to be supported.

Issues Raised

The primary legal issues before the Supreme Court were:

• Whether the testimony of a prosecutrix who is a prostitute or a woman of easy virtue requires corroboration as a matter of law?
• Whether a prostitute can be a victim of rape and whether her profession affects her credibility as a witness?
• Whether the conviction can be set aside solely on the ground that the victim is a prostitute and her testimony is not corroborated?

Arguments of the Parties

Arguments by the Appellant (State of Maharashtra):

• The High Court erred in holding that the testimony of a prostitute requires corroboration as a matter of law.
• A woman does not cease to be a woman merely because she is a prostitute, and she retains her right to refuse sexual intercourse with any person.
• The settled principle of law is that the testimony of a prosecutrix in rape cases does not require corroboration unless there are compelling reasons to disbelieve her testimony.
• Sexual intercourse without consent amounts to rape, regardless of the profession or character of the victim.
• The High Court’s approach was discriminatory and violated the fundamental rights and dignity of women.

Arguments by the Respondent (Madhukar Narayan Mardikar):

• The prosecutrix being a prostitute was a woman of easy virtue, and her testimony should be treated with caution.
• There was no corroborative evidence to support the prosecution’s case.
• The High Court rightly acquitted the accused in the absence of reliable corroboration.

Judgment / Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra and set aside the acquittal ordered by the High Court. The Court restored the conviction of the respondent under Section 376 IPC as passed by the Trial Court.

The Supreme Court held that the testimony of a prosecutrix, even if she is a prostitute, does not require corroboration as a matter of law. The court directed that the respondent be taken into custody to serve the sentence.

Key Legal Principles Established:

1. Right to Consent Irrespective of Profession: The Court categorically held that every woman, including a prostitute, has the right to refuse sexual intercourse with any person. Being a prostitute does not mean that she has surrendered her right to consent. Rape is rape, regardless of the profession of the victim.
2. No Blanket Rule for Corroboration: The Supreme Court rejected the notion that the testimony of a sex worker requires corroboration as a matter of law. The Court reiterated the well-established principle that the testimony of a prosecutrix in a rape case does not require corroboration unless there are compelling reasons to doubt her credibility.
3. Dignity and Equal Protection: The Court emphasized that a woman’s dignity and bodily autonomy must be respected regardless of her profession or social status. Discriminating against a woman on the basis of her profession violates the principles of equality and human dignity enshrined in the Constitution of India.
4. Judicial Approach: The Court observed that the credibility of a witness must be judged on the basis of the evidence on record and the circumstances of the case, not on the basis of stereotypes or moral judgments about the victim’s character or profession.

Observations by Justice K. Ramaswamy:

The Court stated:

“Even a woman of easy virtue is entitled to privacy and no one can invade her privacy as and when he likes. So also it is not open to any and every person to violate her person as and when he wishes. She is entitled to protect her person if there is an attempt to violate it against her wish. She is equally entitled to the protection of law. Therefore, merely because she is of easy virtue, her evidence cannot be thrown overboard.”

The Court further held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the High Court had committed a serious error in acquitting the accused on untenable grounds.

Precedents Cited:

• The Court relied on the principle that in rape cases, the testimony of the prosecutrix is sufficient for conviction if it is reliable and trustworthy.
• The judgment reinforced the principle of respecting women’s autonomy and consent irrespective of their profession.

Significance of the Judgment:

As it upheld the rights and dignity of all women, including sex workers, this ruling marks a watershed moment in Indian criminal law. It supported the notion that consent is the most important factor in determining the crime of rape while outlawing discriminatory practices based on the victim’s occupation or character. The case has had a long-lasting effect on how courts handle cases involving disadvantaged women and has helped shape the evolving jurisprudence on gender justice in India. It emphasized the need for equal protection for all people under the law, irrespective of their social or professional standing.

Critical Reflection:

The judgment is progressive and reflects a humane and constitutional approach to justice. It corrected a regressive view that sought to deny justice to women based on their profession. The decision aligns with the principles of Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Indian Constitution, ensuring that the law protects the dignity of every individual regardless of their background.