www.gradeup.

co

1
www.gradeup.co

Tuka Ram and Anr Vs State of Maharashtra (1978)

⚫ This case is famously known as Mathura Rape case.
⚫ It is the first case in the history of Indian judiciary which sparked a nationwide fire of public protests against rape.
⚫ The Mathura Rape case stands at the Climax of reforms in rape legislation in India. It is one of the leading case in
the strata of criminal jurisprudence.
⚫ It is a classic case of Custodial rape, wherein the victim was a 16 years old orphan tribal girl, and the accused
were 2 police constables posted at Desaiganj Police Station, in Maharashtra.
⚫ Since the commission of the alleged crime in June, 1972, the case witnessed several dramatic episodes starting
from the highly controversial verdict of the Chandrapur district court in 1974 to the widely appreciated open
letter to the Chief justice of India in 1979. All these led to the introduction of Criminal law amendment act,
1983 that bought several reformative changes to Indian penal code (IPC), Criminal procedure code (CrPC) and
Indian evidence act (IEA).
⚫ The view of India’s Apex court in this case was widely criticized not only at National level but internationally too
for being prejudiced and sexist.
⚫ The greatest dilemma faced by court in this case was “Does Silence means Consent?”

Brief facts of the case: (Time-line of Events)

26th March, 1972: Complaint lodged by victim’s brother in Desaiganj Police station where the accused
policemen were posted-
⚫ The 16 years old victim girl named Mathura was in a love affair with a boy named Ashok living in her
neighborhood.
⚫ Her brother objected to their relationship and consequently filed a criminal complaint in Desaiganj police station
against Ashok, alleging him of abducting his sister and forcing her into prostitution.
⚫ Resultantly, the victim was summoned to the police station on the night of 26 th March, 1972 to give statement
regarding her brother’s abovesaid complaint. She was accompanied by Ashok to the police station.
⚫ The 2 police constables, Tukaram and Ganpat who were accused in this case were the only policemen who were
present at the Desaiganj Police station at that time.
⚫ Late night around 10:30 PM the accused policemen (who were highly drunk on duty) sent Ashok back to his home
but asked the victim girl to stay inside the Police station campus.
⚫ According to the girl’s testimony Constable Ganpat took her to a washroom at the backyard of Police station and
raped her. After him Constable Tukaram tried to rape her but failed in his attempt because he was highly
intoxicated.

2
www.gradeup.co

27th March, 1972: Victim taken to local government dispensary-

⚫ Soon after the alleged incident the girl reported the crime to her brother and other people in their community,
and they took her to a local government dispensary.
⚫ The doctor present there refused to medically examine her claiming that he was not authorized to conduct
rape tests. However, he gave her a reference letter to a larger hospital at chandarpur.

28th March, 1972: Medical test conducted on the victim’s body-

⚫ A day after the alleged crime, medical test of the victim was successfully conducted at Chandarpur Hospital.
⚫ The procedure followed by the doctors in her medical test suffered several loopholes. The main one was the two-
fingers test performed on victim’s body. (The two-fingers test was claimed to be an absurd phenomenon by
professor Upendra Baxi in his open letter to CJI. Later on such tests were prohibited).
⚫ Highlights of the Medical test were:
➢ The girl didn’t had any injury on her body.
➢ There was no pubic hair present in her private parts.
➢ No semen was detected inside her vagina, although it was found on her clothes and underwear.

Findings of Chandrapur district court:

⚫ The district court, Chandrapur was of the view that the act of rape was never committed on the body of the victim,
and therefore acquitted the accused of all charges.
⚫ The judge in his judgment said “She was used to having sex and must have consented to the Police. She claimed so
that she would appear virtuous to her lover”.
⚫ The decision of the district court was subjected to widespread criticism and the views of the judge were alleged
to be highly sexist.

Findings of Bombay high court (Nagpur bench):

⚫ The Bombay high court’s Nagpur bench in its judgment dated 12th October, 1976 reversed the decision of district
court and convicted the accused policemen.
⚫ Ganpat was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment for raping the victim and Tukaram was sentenced to 1 years
imprisonment for assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty.
⚫ In an appreciated move all over the nation, the Bombay high court laid down a thin line of differentiation between
Passive submission and Consent. The Court held that passive submission doesn’t amounts to consent, and in
the instant case the girl passively submitted to the acts of the accused but didn’t consented.

3
www.gradeup.co

Findings of the Supreme Court:

⚫ In an appeal by the accused to the Supreme court, the three judge bench of the apex court in a judgment dated
15th September, 1978 reversed the high court order and overturned convictions of the 2 accused policemen.
⚫ The judgment noted “Mathura must have consented because she didn’t screamed, and there were no visible bruises
on her body”.
⚫ In the Judgment Justice A.D Koshal said “No marks of injury were found on the person of the girl after the incident
and their absence goes a long way to indicate that alleged intercourse was a peaceful affair, and that the story of a
stiff resistance having been put up by the girl is all false”.
⚫ The Supreme Court restored the highly criticized district court judgment declaring that the act was a consensual
sexual intercourse.

Aftermath of the Judgment:

⚫ In response to the Supreme Court’s verdict there was a massive uproar among the public all over the nation,
disapproving the findings of the Court.
⚫ In this context an Open letter to the Chief Justice of India was written by Professor Upendra Baxi, dean of
University of delhi law school. The letter was also signed by 3 prominent law professors of the country who were-
Vasudha Dhagamwar; Raghunath Kelkar; and Lotika Sarkar.
⚫ The open letter dated 16th September, 1979 spread like wildfire among the masses and got featured in various
national and international newspapers.
⚫ The following four were the primary prayers in the letter:
➢ Shift burden of proof from victim to accused.
➢ Harsher punishment for rape.
➢ Law prohibiting real name of rape victim to appear in public arena.
➢ A ban on absurd two-finger tests performed on the body of victim.

⚫ The open letter was never entertained by the Supreme court, but the Parliament of India gave due
acknowledgment to the issue raised and finally, as a consequence of the letter introduced the Criminal law
amendment act, 1983 that bought reformative changes in sexual assault laws of the nation. Some of the changes
were:
I. Section 114 A in Indian Evidence act, 1872: Section 114 A was inserted in the Indian Evidence act by virtue of
Criminal law amendment act, 1983. This section shift the burden of proof on the accused. Therefore, if it has been
proved that sexual intercourse between the accused and victim took place, and the victim says that it was not
consensual, than the court will presume it to be non-consensual, even if there is no corroboration of evidence.
II. Section 376 of IPC, 1860: Section 376 of IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of rape. This section was
amended and custodial rape was made an offence publishable with imprisonment of not less than 7 years.

4
www.gradeup.co

III. The following sub-sections to Section 376 were also added:

a. Section 376A- Intercourse by a man with his wife during separation;
b. Section 376B- Intercourse by a public servant with woman in his custody.
c. Section 376C- Intercourse by superintendent of jail, remand home
d. 376D- Gang rape
IV. By the virtue of this amendment, the Publication of victim’s identities (including her name) were also banned and
prohibited. (For instance, in Nirbhaya rape case the name of the victim ‘Nirbhaya’ was a court given name and not
her real name).
V. The amendment prescribed that rape trials should be conducted as in-camera proceedings.

---------------------------------

5
www.gradeup.co