Tukaram and another v. State of Maharashtra (1978) case

Introduction

Rape is amongst the most despicable crimes in India.  Generally, rape is when a person seriously damages another’s body and rights without their consent.  Individuals feel great pain, which adversely impacts their physical and mental health.  In trying to seek justice, victims of rape face many barriers in many areas of India. For those belonging to minority groups, the aboriginal peoples, and the lower socio-economic backgrounds, it is that much harder.

Most arguments and adjustments to India’s response to rape can be heard in the 1978 case of Tukaram and Others v. State of Maharashtra, popularly referred to as the Mathura Rape Case. Not only was Mathura, who was a young tribal girl, raped, but the case also indicated how the system failed her and how biases within society rendered it much harder for her to seek justice.  This case indicates the necessity of better victim care and transforming how we deal with sexual abuse.

1. Case Title

Tukaram and Another v. State of Maharashtra (1978)

2. Citation

1979 AIR 185, 1979 SCR (1) 810

3. Court

Supreme Court of India

4. Bench

Honourable Justice A.D. Koshal,

Honourable Justice Jaswant Singh,

Honourable Justice P.S. Kailasam.

5. Date of Judgment

September 15, 1978

6. Relevant Statutes/Key Provisions

Acts, constitutional provisions, or laws discussed mainly in the judgment.

Sections 375, 376(1), 376(2), 376(3) Under IPC (BNS)

7. Brief Facts

An underage tribal girl, Mathura, was brought to the Desai Ganj police station in Maharashtra following a low-level domestic dispute.  Mathura claims that while in police custody, she was raped by two police officers, Tukaram and Ganpat.  Following Mathura’s report to her relatives regarding the actions of the police officers, they filed a complaint against the officers.

Because there was no glaring damage and no sign of Mathura resistance, the police officers were acquitted at trial court level.  The court ruled that Mathura’s docile demeanor and absence of bodily harm were signs of acquiescence. With the presence of power disparities and the application of force within the prison environment, the Bombay High Court had the conviction overturned on appeal and declared that Mathura could not have voluntarily agreed to the act.  The police officials were ruled by the court to have misused their power. But the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the High Court and upheld the decision, stating that the silence on the part of Mathura was acquiescence. Because of the considerable outrage and disruption it caused, the case gained national recognition, highlighting the inadequacies in India’s legal system for handling rape allegations, particularly in confined settings.

8. Issues Involved

The main issue revolved around whether the victim agreed to the sexual activity willingly or if she was forced into it.

1. Did the minor girl provide consent to the act?
2. Will the appellants be charged with Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code?
3. Is the act perpetrated by the police officer rape as detailed in the concerned section of the IPC?
4. Are the grounds of the acquittal of the police officer by the Session Court valid?

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The appellants Tukaram and Ganpat argued that there was no illegal force applied in the sexual act and that Mathura had provided his consent.  As evidence that Mathura had not been resisting the activity in question, the absence of any manifest signs of defiance or physical injury was provided and this was interpreted as acquiescence. The argument that Mathura was not objecting to the act was corroborated by the argument. They maintained that Mathura’s behavior after the experience had no evidence of trauma or objection, corroborating their claim that the sexual experience was entirely voluntary.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The defendant, the State of Maharashtra, averred that Mathura, the victim, gave credible and genuine statements.  They clarified that the victim’s version of what transpired was supported by the facts and should be given consideration.
• The defendant had contended that the evidence at hand was enough to prove the crime of rape.

They had asserted that the victim’s complaint and medical evidence were more than enough to justify the penalty.

• The respondent had maintained that there was no consentual sexual intercourse.  They had clarified that the evidence had indicated that sexual activity was forbidden in Mathura, which was an important element in proving the crime of rape.

10. Judgment

The Supreme Court acquitted Mathura in 1979 of rape, holding that it was a consensual sexual intercourse. The court relied on Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which enumerates rape and lists five situations under which sexual intercourse amounts to rape. Consent is to be inferred from circumstances, and fear must be established beyond doubt. The court also emphasized the burden of proof in criminal cases, which is prosecution proving every aspect beyond reasonable doubt. Inconsistencies between the victim’s statements could invalidate her claims. The court also emphasized the need to evaluate witnesses’ credibility prior to coming to a conclusion.

11. Ratio Decidendi

That the session judge could not detect any satisfactory evidence to prove the victim to be below the age of 16 on the date of occurrence.  It was concluded that Mathura was “a shocking liar” and there were a number of falsehoods and improbabilities in his version. While it was decided that there was no question that sexual intercourse had taken place between appellant No. 1 and Mathura, the victim, there was also stated to be no evidence of rape.  The appellant was found not guilty and it was determined that “sexual intercourse” and “rape” are two totally distinct concepts.

In addition, the High Court reversed the acquittal order based on the fact that the sexual act was not consensual but was coercive in nature and therefore amounted to rape, even though it concurred with the learned Sessions Judge’s finding of Mathura’s age. He erred by not perceiving the difference between “passive submission” and consent.

The defense’s argument that Mathura was acquainted with the defendants or any one of them prior to the incident was turned down by the High Court.  Thus, it is highly impossible for Mathura to approach the accused or encourage him to fulfill her sexual lust and it is also impossible for a girl who had a complaint lodged by her brother to do the same. Therefore, it is being suggested that the accused must have had taken the initiative, and if so, she could not have resisted it.

While the Court ruled that Tuka Ram had not tried to commit rape, it did consider Ganpat’s alleged touching of the victim’s private parts.

For all these reasons, the High Court convicted the appellants Tuka Ram and Ganpat and sentenced them to one year and five years imprisonment, respectively.

Therefore, the appellants preferred the above appeal against the order of the High Court, and they raised the following contentions before the concerned court:

1. As the girl’s agreement to the supposed act of sexual abuse could not be directly established, it had to be gathered by inference from the facts. It could not be inferred from the facts that the girl had been subjected to or was in any state of fear or compulsion warranting an inference of any “passive submission.”
2. Because the body of the girl has no visible signs of injuries, stiff resistance was found to be a false account and the purported sexual encounter was tranquil.
3. It was also established that the accusations from the girl about having shouted for help during the incident were false.
4. The High Court ruled that the self-proclaimed submission to the act of sexual intercourse based on fear does not amount to legal consent.
5. The High Court forgets that the accused abducted the girl from her loved ones.

      12.Obiter Dicta

Remarks were made on the guardian role of the judiciary over Indian Penal Code (BNS)

13. Final Decision

The Supreme Court held that, excluding rape, that is, sexual activity with a woman against her will, the prosecution needed to establish all the elements of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code.  The court argued that the girl’s consent was not passive and had not been obtained in fear of injury or death. The court ruled that the case was about consensual sexual intercourse and reversed the decision of the High Court, freeing the accused.

In the wake of the Mathura Rape Case, a protest wave was initiated by prominent lawyers and activists.  They were not content with the response of the Supreme Court to the case and felt it revealed glaring deficiencies in the justice system. Since the two-finger test was intrusive and had a number of technical flaws, it was thought to have an inappropriate impact on deciding sexual assault cases.  This was one of the most significant factors.  This test, which was commonly utilized back then, lost much of its strength in proving rape because the Court ignored it as inadequate evidence. Others argued that when the Court projected its expectations onto Mathura, it should have had regard to the power relations at play in the cases of institutional rape.  The Court unjustly questioned whether Mathura’s consent had been given and her sexual history, inferring that she should be presumed to have been involved, instead of looking at the police officers’ misconduct and her rights abuse.

To uphold the privacy of victims and shift the burden of proof to the offender, the Indian legislature revised the Indian Penal Code in 1983 by including Section 228A as part of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.  This Act also mandated in-camera hearings in rape cases and imposed stricter penalties for custodial rape. Scholars of law also called for the re-examination of the case in an open letter that emphasized the need for civil rights and judicial impartiality.

14. Conclusion

Women’s rights organizations were incensed and protested en masse following the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Mathura rape case.  Such organizations argue that the court’s ruling encouraged victim-blaming and evaded the fact of oppressive circumstances in rape incidents that had taken place within prison grounds. This resulted in significant changes to Indian law, such as the definition of rape being broadened and that absence of physical force does not establish consent.  These modifications were implemented due to this case.  Due to this case, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was modified in 1983.nged in 1983.