CASE COMMENT: TUKA RAM AND ANR VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

(Mathura Case)
Written by Vidhi Aggarwal

Date of Judgement:
15/09/1978
Citation:
1979 AIR 185, 1979 SCR (1) 810, 1979 SCC (2) 143
Bench:
Koshal, A.D.
Bench:
Koshal, A.D. Singh, Jaswant Kailasm, P.S.
Introduction:
The Mathura Rape Case, also known as Tuka Ram and Others v. State of Maharashtra, led to
unending conflict and bloodshed. As a result, significant modifications to India's rape laws were
made. Mathura, a young girl, was raped in this instance. The decision rendered in this case by
Judges Jaswant Singh, Kailasm, and Koshal was strongly contested due to its lack of logic and
legitimacy as well as its use of subtlety and other devious tactics.
Facts of the case:

 Mathura, a young girl lived with her brother Gama after the death of her parents. She and
Gama would be employed at Nunshi as laborers. It was there that she met Ashok,
Nunshi’s nephew. After growing close to one another, they decided to tie the knot.
 On March 26, 1972, Gama reported to the Desai Gunj police station that Nunshi, her
husband Laxman, and Ashok had abducted Mathura. Around 9:00 PM, Head Constable
Baburao took note of these statements. It was he who also took notes on the two lovers'
statements. By then, it was 10:30 PM, and Baburao had asked them all to go, asking
Gama to bring a copy of the entry about Mathura's birth, before departing for his own
home.
 Mathura was asked to come inside by Constable Ganpat as the four of them were leaving.
Not long after, he led her around the back of the police station where he sexually
assaulted her by holding a torch up to her privates and then raped her. After satisfying his
lust, Head Constable Tukaram fondled her private parts. He intended to rape her but
failed as he was in a highly intoxicated state.
 When Ashok, Nunshi, and Gama noticed that the police station's lights were off while
they were waiting for Mathura outside, they became suspicious. She told them the story
of the incident after leaving the police station after a while. She subsequently filed a
complaint. During Dr. Kamal Shastrakar's examination of Mathura on March 27, 1972,
 no signs of sexual activity or injuries were discovered on her body. On Mathura's and
Ganpat's clothing, semen was found, nevertheless.
Issue Raised:
1. Are the appellants Constable Ganpat and Head Constable Tukaram liable for punishment
under sec 376 of the Indian Penal Code?
2. Are Constable Ganpat and Head Constable Tukaram liable for offence under sec 354 of
the Indian Penal Code?
3. Can a minor girl give consent for such an act?
4. Was the act consented to or passive submission due to fear by the girl?
Arguments:

 Contention of Appellant:
Regarding the girl's kind of consent to the act of sexual intercourse, there is no concrete
evidence. Therefore, it was not possible to conclude that the girl had been subjected to or was
under any kind of coercion or fear that would support the idea that she had submitted in any way,
even if passively. The story of stiff resistance is completely untrue; the alleged sexual encounter
was a peaceful affair. These are all untrue estimates of the little girl who had screamed from
inside the police station. Confession is not the same as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's assumption
that a girl must have engaged in sexual activity out of fear.

 Contention of Respondent:
Here, arguments were made on behalf of the victim, claiming that the girl may have been scared
into having sex because she was at the police station, where she would have felt helpless in front
of two powerful complainants whose cases could not be ignored on their own. The demonstrators
locked the police station doors and turned out the lights. During the medical examination, the
doctor found that Mathura and the appellant Ganpat had semen on their clothing. The girl's age
was estimated to be between 14 and 16 years old.
Ratio Decidendi:
The experienced Sessions Judge concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish
Mathura's age on the incident date being less than sixteen. He added that her testimony was
"filled with falsehoods and improbabilities" and that she was "a shocking liar." He said there was
a high likelihood she had slept with Ganpat. He clarified, though, that "sexual intercourse" and
"rape" were completely different from one another. Mathura voluntarily engaged in sexual
relations with Ganpat. The prosecution had not proven its case against the appellants, he
concluded.
The Sessions Court's decision was overturned by the High Court. It concluded that the forced
sexual activity amounted to rape. It was untrue that Mathura would ask the accused to satiate her
sexual desire because both of them were strangers to her. Regarding appellant Tuka Ram, the
Court held that he had not attempted to rape the girl and had instead taken her word for it when
he was reported to have fondled her intimate areas following Ganpat appellant's act of sexual
intercourse. The appellants Tukaram and Ganpat were found guilty by the High Court and given
sentences of one year and five years, respectively, in prison.
The conviction against the appellants and the sentences they had been given were overturned by
the Supreme Court, allowing them to go free. However, since the girl had altered her statement at
her will, how could it have been verified that it was accurate in the first place?
The victim's consent was described by the court as not being "passive." Additionally, the girl's
body was free of any injuries. Therefore, it was unable to draw the conclusion that the girl had
been forced to do anything or was afraid of being forced to do anything, which would have
supported the idea that she had submitted passively.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, following the Mathura Rape Case, India's rape laws were modified; however, rape
cases have been rising annually ever since. These crimes not only injure the victim gravely
physically but also have major psychological repercussions like depression, relapses, sleep
disturbances, and more. Making the State and Nation's female population feel more safe and
secure would be a first step toward ending this crime. Men's attitudes and mindsets, such as those
of the Supreme Court judges in the Mathura Rape Case, need to be changed more than strict laws
to punish wrongdoers.