Known as the “Mathura Rape Case,” Tukaram vs state of maharashtra is an infamous case. A nationwide outcry was triggered by the ruling and views of the Sessions court, as well as the judgment issued by the country’s highest court. The case was extremely contentious not only because of the statements made by both the lower and supreme courts, but also because it raised questions about “passive consent,” addressed the idea of custodial rape, and addressed the role of a woman’s “chastity or virginity” in rape cases. This case sparked widespread indignation over sexual assault and other crimes against women around the nation.
mathura case summary
Mathura Case Facts:
- The prosecution claims that in the police station, the appellants sexually assaulted Mathura, a girl who was between the ages of 14 and 16. Since her brother Gama’s death when she was a young child, Mathura has lived with her brother. Their means of subsistence was labor, which they both did.
- When Mathura was employed by Nunshi, she had the opportunity to get to know Ashok, the sister’s son of Nunshi. They chose to be married as a result of their continued intimacy growing between them.
- Gama filed a complaint on March 26, 1972, claiming that Nunshi, her husband, and her nephew had abducted Mathura. The statements of Ashok and Mathura were recorded at the Chief Constable Baburao’s request. At approximately 10:30 p.m., everyone was requested to leave, and Gama was instructed to fetch a copy of the record containing Mathura’s birthdate.
- The appellants urged Mathura to wait at the police station while they all went. Mathura did as instructed, and right away Ganpat (also known as appellant No.1) pulled her to a Chhapri on her bottom where he sexually assaulted her once more. Furthermore, it is claimed that Tukaram (also known as appellant No. 2) caressed her intimate areas but was unable to rape her due to his extreme inebriation.
- Nunshi, Gama, and Ashok became suspicious when they discovered that the police station’s front door was closed from within and that its lights had been switched out while they were waiting for Mathura outside the station. As a result, they shouted and drew attention. Afterwards, the doctor who had initially examined her advised against filing a complaint against the two police constables.
- March 27, 1972, at 8:00 p.m. After examining the child, the doctor concluded that there were no physical injuries or indications of sexual activity on her part. On the girl’s clothing, however, and on appellant No. 1’s pyjamas, semen was found.
Mathura Case Issues:
- Did the young girl give her permission for the act?
- Will the Indian Penal Code, also known as the “IPC,” Section 376 be used to prosecute the appellants?
- Are the police officer’s actions considered rape under the relevant clause of the IPC?
- Is it true that the police officer was found not guilty by the court?
Contentions by the Petitioner:
- The girls had taken the initiative. Because her brother had filed a complaint against her, which was the subject of an investigation at the police station, and because her actions were taken only to further her interests.
- Regarding Tukaram (appellant), in spite of her unfounded claims that he had touched her privates after Ganpat (appellant) engaged in sexual activity, he had not made an attempt to rape the girl.
- There isn’t any concrete evidence to suggest that the girl was younger than sixteen.
- That no medical evidence exists to conclusively demonstrate that the appellant engaged in sexual activity. due to the lack of semen samples in her vagina as well as in her pubic hair.
- The girl was found to have a history of sexual behaviour and to have previous scars on her face by the medical examiner.
- The fact that no marks indicating she had been sexually assaulted violently could be discovered on her body
Contentions by the Defendant:
- The initiative originated with the accused, and since she was already in a precarious situation due to a complaint her brother had filed against her, which was still under investigation at the police station, she was unable to oppose it.
- It is almost unlikely that Mathura would approach the accused or make any gestures in an attempt to satiate her sexual craving.
- The girl’s age is explicitly stated in the doctor’s report as being between 14 and 16 years old.
- Given that the medical test was completed after 20 hours, it’s possible that the youngster showered on her own.
- That the girls’ clothes contained the semen sample.
- The girl took the initiative to initiate a sexual encounter because she was with her brother at the time.
- That fear-induced passive submission resulting from substantial threats could not be interpreted as consenting to sexual activity.
mathura case judgment by the Supreme Court:
- The decision given in themathura case year is 1979. It comprised Justice A.D. Koshal, Justice Jaswant Singh and Justice P.S. Kailasam (J) in the bench.
- The Sessions Court’s view was supported by the Supreme Court rather than the High Court’s. The Apex Court believed that the consent was not given in a passive manner.
- The Apex Court also took into consideration the absence of any physical damage to the girl, any resistance, the failure to sound an alert, etc. The fact that she was coerced into giving her consent for a variety of reasons was completely ignored by the court.
- The rape event was considered a “peaceful affair” by the court. The court also considered the results of “the two-finger test,” which is extremely degrading to the victim of rape. Consequently, the two offenders were found not guilty.
For any latest news, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
