Sahyadri Shikshan Sanstha’s

SAHYADRI POLYTECHNIC SAWARDE

A
CASE STUDY
ON

Mathura Rape Case (1979)

Submitted To

MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION

IN THE PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIRMENT FOR DIPLOMA IN
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Miss. Lad Tanvi Rajendra

Mr. Mulla Akil Ali
Mr. Chavan Pranil Vijay
Mr. Gosavi Soham Santosh
Miss. Shelar Siddhi Vinod

UNDER THE GUINDANCE

Anerao S. U

2024-2025
 Mathura Rape case

Introduction:
Rape is one of the most serious crimes in India. Rape in general, is when someone hurts another
person’s body and rights in a really bad way without their consent. It causes a lot of pain, thus
making people feel very bad, both in their bodies and in their minds. In many places, in India, rape
victims face many difficulties when they try to seek justice. This is even more difficult for people
from poorer backgrounds, tribal communities, or minority groups.

➢ Appellant

Suraj Ratan Thirani & Ors

➢ Respondents

The Azamabad Tea Co. & Ors

➢ Case No.
o Civil Appeal No 330 Of 1960
➢ Judges
The Hon’ble The Chief Justice Bhuvaneshwar Prasad SinhaThe Hon’ble Justice J.C shah The
Hon’ble Justice n. Rajagopala Ayyangar

➢ Advocates

S.T Desai, Senior Advocate (B.P Maheshwari, Advocate, with him).

B. Sen and N.R Ghosh, Senior Advocates. (Salil K. Datt and P.K Ghosh, Advocates, with
them).

This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated October 12, 1976 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench) reversing a judgment of acquittal of the two
appellants of an offence under section 376 read with section 34 of the indian penal code recorded
by the Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, on June 1, 1974, and convicting Tukaram, Appellant 1, of an
offence under section 354 of the code and the second appellant named Ganpat of one under Section
376 thereof. The sentences imposed by the High Court on the two appellants are rigorous
imprisonment for a year and 5 years respectively.
FACT OF THE CASE

• Mathura was an orphan girl who lived with her brother, Gama. Both of them worked as
labourers. Mathura used to work at the house of a lady named, Nushi. During the course of
her visits to their house, Mathurs developed an intimacy with Nushi's nephew Ashok They
decided to get married. On March 26, 1972. 2. Gama kodged a complaint at police station
Desai Gunj alleging that Mathura had been kidnapped by Nunhi, her husband Laxman and
Ashok

• The report was recorded by Head Constable Baburao. Mathura and other three persons
complained against were brought to the police station on his instance. The statements were
recorded. Gama presented the relevant document proving Mathura's age which was
registered. Baburao then left for home.
 • When Mathura and others were leaving, the appellants asked Mathura to wait at the police
station and asked her companions to move out. When they did so, one of the accused
Ganpat took Mathura to a latrine in the police station, where he loosened ber underwear
and stared at her private parts using a torch. He then dragged her to the rear of the police
station and raped her. Tukaram, the other accused, then came and fondled with her private
parts, He could not rape her owing to his highly intoxicated state

• The others grew suspicious finding lights turned off and entrance door being closed from
within. They went in calling for Mathura. Finally Mathura emerged and told the others
about the whole incident. Nushi took Mathura to a doctor to get her examined. The doctor
told them that they should first get an FIR registered.

• Baburao wus called back and he registered the FIR. Mathura wan examined the next day.
The girl had no injury on her person. Her hymen revealed old ruptures. The vagina admitted
two fingers easily. There was no matting of the pubic hair. The age of the girl was estimated
by the doctor to be between 14 and 16 years. No traces of semen were found on her body,
though it was found in the clothes worn by both the girl and the accused.

• The learned Sessions Judge found that there satisfactory evidence to prove that Mathura
was below 16 years of age on the date of the occurrence. He further held that she was "a
shocking liar" whose testimony is riddled with falsehood and improbabilities". It was
finally concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove is case against the appellants.
The Bombay High Court reversed the judgment finding

Ganpat guilty under Section 376 and Tukaram under Section 354 of the Indian PenalCode. The
two of them then came before the Supreme Court in appeal against the High Court judgement

LAW POINTS

SECTION 375. RAPE.- A man is said to commit “rape” who, except in the case hereinafter
excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six
following descriptions:-
 • (First) Against her will.

• (Secondly) Without her consent.

• (Thirdly) With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any
person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt.

• (Fourthly)-With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her
consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes.
Herself to be lawfully married.

• (Fifthly) With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of
unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through
another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the
nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.

• (Sixthly) With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age. Explanation.
Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of
rape.

The appellants are charged under the Rape offence because it is fall under the first three description
of this act. Accused no. 1 had sexual intercourse with her against her will and without her consent
and put her into fear.

Note- The said section is amended after this case. Many provisions included after that case in this
section

SECTION 376. PUNISHMENT FOR RAPE

Whoever ,except in the case provided for by sub-section (2).commits rape shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which
may be for life or a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine unless the
women raped is his own wife and is not under twelve years of age,in which cases,he shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to two years or with
fine or both :provided thet the court may,for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the
judgement ,impose sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years,

(2)whoever-

a) being a police officer commits rape=

• within the limits of the police station to which is appointed

• in the premises of any station house whether or not situated in the police station to which
he is appointed
• on a woman inn his custody or in the custody of a police officer subordinate to him.

b)being a public servant ,takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on a woman
in his custody as such public servant or int the custody of a public servant subordinate to him

c)being on the management or on a the staff of a jail, remand home or other place of custody
established by or under any law for the time being force or a women’s or children’s institution
takes advantages of his official position and commits rape on any inmate of such jail,remand
home,place or institution

d)being on the management or on the staff of a hospital takes advantages of his official position
and commits rape on awoman in that hospital

e)commits rape on woman knowing her to be pregnant

f)commits rape on a woman when she is under twelve years of age

g)commits gang rape shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not
be less than ten years but which may be for life and shall also be liable to fine: provided that
the court may for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgement ,impose a
sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term of less than ten years.

• This is a rape case and section 376 describe the punishment of th rape. Therefore 376 is apply
on accused no 1.
• Note-The said section is amended after this case .Many provisions included after that case in
this section.

SECTION 34.ACTS DONE BY SEVERAL REASONS IN FURTHERANCE OF COMMON

INTENTION:

• When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intentios
of all ,each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done
by him alone.
 • Section 34 deals with the common intentions to done any act.In this case accused
no1.and 2.having same intentions to rape Mathura.Although accused no2 failed to do
so caused of highly intoxication.

SECTION 34.ASSAULT OR CRIMINAL FORCR TO WOMAN WITH INTENTIONS TO

OUTRAGE HER MODESTY:

• Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman ,intending to outrage or knowing it
to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty,shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which extend to two years or with fine ,or with both.
• This section is apply on Tukaram because he was outrage the modesty of Mathura by
touching her private parts.

ISSUES

Whether the victim had been subjected to or was under any fear or compulsion such as would
justify an inference of any “passive submission”?
ARGUMENT BY THE APPELLANT

• The initiative had come from the girl side. Because the complaint was filed by her brother
against her which was pending enquiry at the very police station and mere purpose of her
these act to do inquiry in her favor.

• In relation to Tukaram (appellant), he had not made any attempt to rape the girl falsely
alleged that he had fondled her private parts after the act of sexual intercourse by Ganpat
appellant.

• There is not any substantive prove that the girl was under the age of 16 years.

• That there is not any medical evidence which clearly proved the sexual intercourse is done
by the appellant. Because there is not any sample found of semen in her vagina and on her
public hair.

• That the girl was habitual to sex and found old rapture on her hymn by the medical
examiner.
 • That there was not found any marks on her body which were shows that she had forcefully
raped.

ARGUMENT BY THE RESPONDANT

• The initiative had come from the accused and if such an initiative comes from the accused
she could not have resisted the same on account of the situation in which she had found
herself especially on account of a complaint filed by her brother against her which was
pending enquiry at the very police station.

• It is highly improbable that Mathura on her part would make any overtures or invite the
accused to satisfy her sexual desire.

• That in the doctor report clearly states that the girl age between 14 to 16 years.

• That the medical examination is done after the 20 hours, there is all possibility the girl was
washed herself.

• That the semen sample was found on the cloths of the girls.

• That the girl was with her brother on that circumstance why she is take that kind of initiative
for the sexual intercourse.

• That passive submission due to fear induced by serious threats could not be construed as
willing sexual intercourse.

CASE HISTORY
SESSION COURT JUDGEMENT

The learned Sessions Judge found that there was no satisfactory evidence to prove that Mathura
was below 16 years of age on the date of the occurrence. He further held that she was “a shocking
liar” whose testimony “is riddled with falsehood and improbabilities”. But he observed that “the
farthest one can go into believing her and the corroborativecircumstances, would be the conclusion
that while at the Police Station she had sexual intercourse and that, in all probability, this was with
accused Tukaram." He added however that there was a world of difference between "sexual
intercourse" and "rape", and that rape had not been proved in spite of the fact that the defence
version which was a bare denial of the allegations of rape, could not be accepted at its face value.
He further observed: "Finding Nunshi angry and knowing that Nunshi would suspect something
fishy, she (Mathura) could not have very well admitted that of her own free will, she had
surrendered her body to a Police Constable. The crowd included her lover Ashok, and she had to
sound virtuous before him. This is why-this is a possibility-she might have invented the story of
having been confined at the Police Station and raped by accused no. 1. and then concluded that the
prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants. The session court acquitted the both
accused for the same.

HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT

The High Court said that "Mere passive or helpless surrender of the body and its resignation to the
other's lust induced by threats or fear cannot be equated with the desire or will, nor can furnish an
answer by the mere fact that the sexual act was not in opposition to such desire or volition. On the
other hand, taking advantage of the fact that Mathura was involved in a complaint filed by her
brother and that she was alone at the police station at the dead hour of night, it is more probable
that the initiative for satisfying the sexual desire must have proceeded from the accused, and that
victim Mathura must not have been a willing party to the act of the sexual intercourse. Her
subsequent conduct in making a statement immediately to her relatives and to the members of the
crowd leaves no manner of doubt that she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse." The
Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court, thus, set aside the judgment holding that that passive
submission due to fear induced by serious threats could not be construed as willing sexual
intercourse. The High Court's judgment reflects forward thinking and social sensitivity.

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT

The onus is always on the prosecution to prove affirmatively each ingredient of the offence. It was
therefore, incumbent on the prosecution to prove all the ingredients of Section 375 of the Indian
Penal Code. The High Court has not given a finding that the consent of the girl was obtained by
putting her in a state of fear of death or of hurt. Therefore, the third clause of section 375 will not
apply. There could be no fear because the girl was taken away by Ganpat right from amongst her
near and dear ones. The circumstantial evidence available isnot only capable of being construed in
a way different from that adopted by the High Court but actually derogates in no uncertain measure
from the inference drawn by it. Secondly, the intercourse in question is not proved to amount rape
We do not, therefore, propose to take the girl at her word in relation to Tukaram (appellant) and
hold that the charge remains wholly unprovedagainst him. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is
accepted. The judgment of the High have proceeded from the accused, and that victim Mathura
must not have been a willing party to the act of the sexual intercourse.

While on the other hand, Ganpat was acquitted by the Supreme Court owing to the apparent
consent by Mathura. What is even more egregious in the decision is the rationale employed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court for holding Tukaram not guilty. He was acquitted because the court
believed that Mathura's words were inconsistent and that as she had lied about raising an alarm,
she must have lied about Tukaram molesting her also. The most disappointing part in judgment is
that the Supreme Court gave such a decision when on the same set of facts, the High Court in a
well-reasoned judgment had held the two policemen guilty.
LATER AMENDMENT SUGGESSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Mathura case is a cause of various changes in criminal law and after that case the criminal law is
made more victim friendly.Section 114-A in the Indian Evidence Act, 1832, the presumption of
guilt of the accused if the victim in her statement admits that she did not consent for the sexual
intercourse, was accepted and inserted in the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1983. Since the
presumption under Section 114-A is rebuttable, the non insertion of the explanation to Section 375
or adding of free and voluntary consent in the section makes no change from the earlier provision.
The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1983, amended Sections 375 and 376 and inserted Sections
376-A, 376-B, 376-C and 376-D

Severe and certain punishment in a time bound manner, of the rapists has some deterrent value.
Arrest alone may not constitute a strong societal response. Lengthy prison sentences have some
behavior-altering deterrent values. Many well-known jurists and I have advocated capital
punishment for the criminals who commit rape as it is an offence worse than murder so far as its
impact is concerned.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court in the case Tukaram & Anr. V. State of Maharashtra evidently enough,
tragically failed to distinguish between “active consent” and “passive submission”. Such
submission due to fear cannot imply consent. It is the very point where the reasoning of the
Supreme Court faltered, thereby resulting in shocking miscarriage of justice.

Though the case led to the radical amendments in rape laws in the Indian Penal Code making them
more victim-friendly, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case was indeed a big blot on the
face of Indian Judiciary. The Court should have adopted a more sensitive attitude towards the
victim. There is not a single word in the judgment condemning the very act of calling Mathura,
and detaining her at the police station which was in gross violation of the law. Nor is there a single
word condemning the use of the police station as a theatre of rape or submission to sexual
intercourse. There is no direction to the administration to follow the law. The Court unfortunately
enough, gave no consideration whatsoever to the socio- economic status, the lack of knowledge of
legal rights, the age of victim, lack of access to legal services, and the fear complex which haunts
the poor and the exploited in Indian police stations and that too an orphaned illiterate tribal girl of
fourteen or sixteen.