Scribd
Upload
4 views

Case

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay reversed a previous acquittal of two appellants convicted of sexual offenses against a minor, with one receiving a sentence of 5 years for rape and the other 1 year for assault. The case highlighted systemic issues in the treatment of women within the legal system and sparked public protests, leading to changes in sexual assault laws in India. The court found that the victim, Mathura, did not consent to the sexual acts, as the accused were strangers who exploited her vulnerable situation.

Uploaded by

naya18012023
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
4 views

Case

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay reversed a previous acquittal of two appellants convicted of sexual offenses against a minor, with one receiving a sentence of 5 years for rape and the other 1 year for assault. The case highlighted systemic issues in the treatment of women within the legal system and sparked public protests, leading to changes in sexual assault laws in India. The court found that the victim, Mathura, did not consent to the sexual acts, as the accused were strangers who exploited her vulnerable situation.

Uploaded by

naya18012023
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KOSHAL, J.

-This appeal by special leave is


directed against the judgment dated the 12th October 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 the 1st of June 1974, and convicting Tukaram, appellant No. 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.

Sec 376 punishment for rape


Sec 34 Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention
When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of
such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
Sec 354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.
Sec 376

The judgment of the High Court is reversed and the conviction recorded against as well as the
sentences imposed upon the appellants by it are set aside.

This case marked a significant moment in the fight for women’s rights in India.
It exposed the harsh reality of how women were treated in the legal system and
society at large. Rape is not just about sexual violence; it is about power and
control over another person. This power comes from social structures like caste,
class, and the authority of institutions such as the state or employers, all
intertwined with patriarchal beliefs in society Mathura’s case was monumental,
both socially and legally. It sparked the first public protests about rape in India
and led to changes in sexual assault laws.

●​ The main issue revolved around whether the victim agreed to the
sexual activity willingly or if she was forced into it.
●​ Did the minor girl provide consent to the act?
●​ Will the appellants face charges under Section 376 of the Indian Penal
Code?
●​ Does the act committed by the police officer constitute rape as outlined
in the relevant section of the IPC?
●​ Are the reasons for the acquittal of the police officer by the Session
Court deemed valid?
The session judge ruled that the accused were not guilty because what
happened was not rape, but rather consensual sex. Further, it ruled that
Mathura was habituated to sexual intercourse, implying that she may have had
consensual sexual relations in the past. This seemed flawed because he
suggested that Mathura might have wanted to have sex with Ganpat and gave
her consent.

The High Court noted that both accused were strangers to the victim, Mathura.
There was no indication that Mathura knew them before the incident occurred.
This made it highly improbable that Mathura would initiate any sexual advances
toward the accused. Since the accused were strangers and Mathura had no prior
relationship with them, the High Court reasoned that the initiative for sexual
intercourse must have from the accused themselves. They likely took advantage
of Mathura’s vulnerable situation, especially considering there was a pending
complaint against her brother at the same police station. Mathura’s lack of
resistance was seen as a result of fear or threats, not a genuine desire for
sexual intercourse. The High Court reversed the order of acquittal. The High
Court further in its decision said that what happened to Mathura was indeed
rape.

You might also like