Mathura Rape Case [Tukaram and Another vs State of Maharashtra]

Mathura Rape Case highlights the need for a more nuanced understanding of consent, taking into account the power dynamics, the victim’s psychological state and the context of the incident. The legal system must recognise that consent obtained through fear or coercion is not genuine consent and that the absence of physical injuries does not equate to consent.

Facts of the Mathura Rape Case

Mathura, a young orphan, lived with her brother Gama and worked as a labourer at Nushi’s house. During her employment, she developed sexual relations with Ashok, Nushi’s sister’s son and they planned to marry. On March 26, 1972, Gama reported that Mathura had been taken by force, leading to all concerned individuals, including Ashok and Nushi, being brought to the police station.

After giving their statements, Mathura was asked to stay behind by Ganpat, one of the accused. Ganpat took her to the washroom, turned off the lights and despite her protests, raped her. Later, Tukaram, another accused, also attempted to rape her but was too drunk to do so. Mathura later recounted the incident to her family and friends.

A medical examination conducted by Dr. Shastrakar, 24 hours after the incident, revealed no physical injuries indicative of recent trauma. Her hymen had old ruptures, suggesting previous sexual activity and her vagina admitted two fingers easily, often associated with the two-finger test. No semen traces were found in the samples collected. Dr. Shastrakar estimated Mathura’s age to be between 14 and 16 years.

Issues in Tukaram and Another v. State of Maharashtra

The issues involved in Mathura Rape Case were:

1. Whether the victim consented to the sexual activity or was coerced.
2. Did the minor girl provide consent to the act?
3. Should the appellants face charges under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code?
4. Does the act committed by the police officer constitute rape under the relevant IPC section?
5. Are the reasons for the acquittal of the police officer by the Sessions Court valid?

Decision of the Sessions Judge in Mathura Rape Case

The Sessions Judge in Mathura Rape Case ruled that the accused were not guilty, determining that the incident was consensual sex rather than rape. The judge noted Mathura’s habituation to sexual intercourse, implying she might have consented. The semen found on her clothes was suggested to have come from prior consensual intercourse, while the semen on Ganpat’s clothes was attributed to “nightly discharges.”

The judge applied a different standard to men and women, despite Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code stating that intercourse with a girl under 16 is rape, regardless of consent. The judge further doubted Mathura’s age despite evidence from Dr. Shastrakar and dismissed her testimony as fabricated to appear virtuous before Ashok.

Decision of Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in Mathura Rape Case

In 1975, the Bombay High Court distinguished between passive submission and consent, highlighting that Mathura was in a vulnerable position with her brother’s case pending at the same police station. The court found it improbable that Mathura would initiate sexual advances on the accused, who were strangers to her.

The High Court in Mathura Rape Case recognised the power dynamics and the threat of harm, leading to Mathura’s passive submission rather than consent. Mathura’s immediate disclosure to her family and the absence of semen due to the time lapse and probable bathing further indicated a lack of consent. The High Court overturned the acquittal, ruling that what happened to Mathura was indeed rape, noting that Tuka Ram inappropriately touched her after Ganpat’s forcible act.

Judgement of the Supreme Court in Tukaram and Another v State of Maharashtra

In 1979, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s conviction and acquitted the accused, agreeing with the Sessions Judge that the incident involved consensual intercourse. The Supreme Court emphasised the lack of physical injury and the absence of resistance as indicators of consent.

The court referenced Section 375 of the IPC, defining rape and outlining scenarios where intercourse constitutes rape, including lack of consent and consent obtained through fear. The court stated that fear must be established as fear of death or injury, not merely fear of authority figures. The court also emphasised the burden of proof in criminal cases, requiring the prosecution to prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court in Mathura Rape Case noted inconsistencies in Mathura’s testimony regarding the individuals involved, raising doubts about her statements’ truthfulness. The court stressed the importance of assessing witnesses’ credibility and evidence carefully. The court concluded that the lack of resistance and absence of injury implied consent, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

Analysis of the Supreme Court Judgement in Mathura Rape Case

The Supreme Court’s judgement in Tukaram and Another vs State of Maharashtra is often criticised for its narrow interpretation of consent and the emphasis on physical resistance as evidence of non-consent. This judgement overlooked the power dynamics and the psychological impact of authority figures’ coercion. The court’s reliance on the absence of physical injuries and the notion of passive submission undermined the victim’s experience and the broader understanding of consent.

The Mathura Rape Case judgement failed to acknowledge the vulnerable position of the victim and the implicit threats posed by the accused’s authority. The court’s interpretation of consent did not consider the fear and psychological coercion experienced by victims of sexual assault, particularly when the perpetrators hold positions of power.

Summary of Tukaram and Another v State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court case, Tukaram and Another v. State of Maharashtra (1979), involved the alleged rape of Mathura, a young orphan, by policemen Ganpat and Tukaram. Initially, the Sessions Court acquitted the accused, ruling the incident as consensual sex, but the Bombay High Court overturned this, recognising Mathura’s passive submission due to fear.

However, the Supreme Court reinstated the acquittal, emphasising the absence of physical injuries and resistance as consent. Mathura Rape Case judgement sparked widespread outrage, highlighting the need for a nuanced understanding of consent and the impact of authority on victims, eventually leading to significant legal reforms in India’s handling of rape cases.