12/19/23, 3:42 PM Case Brief: Tuka Ram And Anr v State of Maharashtra

Subject-Wise Law Notes Case Brief: Tuka Ram And Anr V State Of Maharashtra

Case Brief: Tuka Ram And Anr v State of

Maharashtra
Case Briefs Indian Penal Code Subject-Wise Law Notes

LawBhoomi ●
May 25, 2020

https://lawbhoomi.com/case-brief-tuka-ram-and-anr-v-state-of-maharashtra/ 1/15
12/19/23, 3:42 PM Case Brief: Tuka Ram And Anr v State of Maharashtra

Share & spread the love

Court: Supreme Court of India

Citations: 1979 AIR 185, 1979 SCR (1) 810, 1979 SCC (2) 143

Coram: A.D. Koshal (J), Jaswant Singh(J), P.S. Kailasam (J)

Theme Custodial rape case in which consent was determined with circumstantial
evidence and the reasoning exposed the Court’s deep rooted biases against
women, leading to important amendments in the IPC.

Subject: Indian Penal Code

Judgement: India

https://lawbhoomi.com/case-brief-tuka-ram-and-anr-v-state-of-maharashtra/ 2/15
12/19/23, 3:42 PM Case Brief: Tuka Ram And Anr v State of Maharashtra

Contents [ hide ]
1. FACTS OF TUKA RAM AND ANR V STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
1.1. THE SESSIONS COURT AND THE HIGH COURT
2. ISSUES IN TUKA RAM AND ANR V STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
2.1. THE SUPREME COURT
3. THE RATIO
4. IMPACT OF TUKA RAM AND ANR V STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
5. COMMENTS

FACTS OF TUKA RAM AND ANR V STATE OF

MAHARASHTRA
The cause of action for this case arose on 26th March 1972, when a girl named
Mathura (P.W.1) was sexually assaulted at Desai Gunj Police Station, by Appellant
No.1 Tukaram (Police Constable) and Appellant No. 2 Ganpat (Head Constable).
Mathura worked at Nunshi’s (P.W. 2) house where she met Ashok, Nunshi’s
relative and fell in love with him. Their relationship gradually became very
intimate after which they decided to get married. On the above said date, Gama,
Mathura’s brother (P.W. 3) lodged a report with the Desai Gunj police station
accusing Nunshi, her husband Laxman and Ashok of kidnapping Mathura.
Subsequently they were all brought to the police station at about 9:00 pm where
the statements of Mathura and Ashok were recorded by Head Constable Baburao
(P.W.8). After the recording of statements, at around 10:30 pm Baburao left after
directing Gama to bring a copy of Mathura’s birth record.

As Mathura, Nunshi, Gama and Ashok were leaving, the appellants asked
Mathura to stay back and her companions to move out. Ganpat then dragged
Mathura to the latrine at the rear end of the building, where he loosened her
underwear, lit the torch and stared at her private parts. Soon after that she was
then dragged to the Chhapri, the verandah at the back of the building where he
had sexual intercourse with her despite protests and stiff resistance on her part.
As regards Appellant No. 1 Tukaram, the allegation was that he fondled her
private parts but was unable to have sexual intercourse due to his intoxicated
state.

Nunshi, Gama and Ashok, who were waiting outside the police station grew
suspicious when they saw that the lights were turned off and that the entrance

https://lawbhoomi.com/case-brief-tuka-ram-and-anr-v-state-of-maharashtra/ 3/15
12/19/23, 3:42 PM Case Brief: Tuka Ram And Anr v State of Maharashtra

was locked from within. They went to the rear end of the building and shouted
for Mathura, which attracted a crowd outside the police station. Shortly
afterwards, Tukaram exited the police station and informed them that Mathura
had already left. After this, when Mathura emerged from the police station, she
informed Nunshi and Gama that Ganpat had forced her to undress and had
raped her. For the purpose of registering a complaint for the same, Baburao was
brought from his house. He took Mathura’s statement which was registered as
the first information report.

Mathura was examined by Dr. Shastrakar at 8 p.m. on 27th March and the
examination revealed that there were no injury marks on her body and her
hymen revealed old ruptures. The vagina easily admitted two fingers and there
was no matting of the pubic hair. Her age was estimated to be around 14-16
years by the doctor. Though no semen was found on the pubic hair and inside
the vagina, Mathura’s clothes as well as Ganpat’s pyjamas revealed the presence
of semen.

harges were brought against the Appellants under Section 376 (Punishment for
Rape) read with Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of the
common intention of all) of the Indian Penal Code.

THE SESSIONS COURT AND THE HIGH COURT

The Sessions Court found no satisfactory evidence to conclude that Mathura was
raped or sexually assaulted by Ganpat and Tukaram. Mathura was referred to as a
“shocking liar”[1] whose testimony “is riddled with falsehood and
improbabilities”[2]. The Court observed that there is a vast difference between
sexual intercourse and rape and assumed that what happened in this particular
case between Mathura and the Appellants was consensual sex as rape could not
be proved by the Prosecution.

According to the Sessions Court Mathura’s accusation against Ganpat and

Tukaram were only because she couldn’t confess in front of her brother Gama
and lover Ashok that she wilfully surrendered to two men in authority. The court
justified the finding of semen on both Mathura’s and Ganpat’s clothes by stating
that Mathura was habituated to having sexual intercourse and the fact that she
was living with Ashok was proof of the same. Therefore the court concluded that
the semen stains on Mathura’s clothes could be due to her sexual intercourse

https://lawbhoomi.com/case-brief-tuka-ram-and-anr-v-state-of-maharashtra/ 4/15
12/19/23, 3:42 PM Case Brief: Tuka Ram And Anr v State of Maharashtra

with someone else and that of Ganpat was due to his ‘nightly discharges’. Thus,
the appellants were acquitted.

The High Court though agreed on the findings of the age of Mathura but
disagreed with its view that the presence of semen on clothes of Mathura and
Ganpat and not on her pubic hair or body was not enough to draw a conclusion
that Mathura was raped. The High Court considered the fact that Mathura was
only examined by the doctor 20 hours after the incident and there was a
probability that she bathed in the meantime. It also agreed with the lower court
on the difference between sexual intercourse and rape but it also differentiated
between consent and passive submission.

The court observed that both the appellants were complete strangers to Mathura
and hence it was improbable that she would have initiated the sexual intercourse,
in fact she couldn’t have resisted the sexual intercourse initiated by the two
policemen in whose hands lay the complaint made by her brother. “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.”[3]

On the other hand the fact that they took advantage of Mathura being alone at
the police station and also their authority over their case might mean that they
were the ones to take the initiative. Taking all of this into account, the High Court
reversed the acquittal and observed that there was passive submission on
Mathura’s part due to fear and this was not free consent in the eyes of law. Thus,
Appellant No. 1 Tukaram was convicted under Section 354 (Outraging the
modesty of a woman) and Appellant No. 2 Ganpat was convicted under Section
376 (Punishment for Rape) of the Indian Penal Code.

ISSUES IN TUKA RAM AND ANR V STATE OF

MAHARASHTRA
This appeal by Special Leave is preferred by the appellants from the Judgement
and Order of the Bombay High Court. The main issue made out by the Supreme
Court in this case is whether there was consent on Mathura’s part for the sexual
intercourse that took place as indicated by the circumstantial evidence brought
before the Court. The court determined the presence of free consent based on
the following – absence of injury marks on Mathura’s body, failure to raise an
alarm and shout for help and no fear of death or hurt at the time of the incident.

https://lawbhoomi.com/case-brief-tuka-ram-and-anr-v-state-of-maharashtra/ 5/15
12/19/23, 3:42 PM Case Brief: Tuka Ram And Anr v State of Maharashtra

THE SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court contended that Mathura’s natural impulse, if she genuinely
didn’t consent in her free will to Ganpat dragging her to the latrine, would have
been to resist, jerk off the hand that grasped her or shout out for help. Mathura’s
failure to appeal to her companions and the fact that the medical examination
did not reveal any injuries on her body shows that her consent cannot be
brushed aside as “passive submission”. The Court stated, “It is further clear that
the averments on the part of the girl that she had been shouting loudly for help
are also a tissue of lies.”[4] Further, the onus of proving all the ingredients which
constitute the offence of rape under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code is on
the prosecution and to vitiate Mathura’s consent so that the offence of rape is
made out, it has to be shown, according to Section 375 thirdly, that she was in
fear of hurt or death. However, the circumstantial evidence presented before the
Court does not warrant for such a conclusion. She was taken by Ganpat right in
front of her near and dear ones and could have easily asked for their help.

With respect to the accusations against Tukaram, it was noted that Mathura had
made serious allegations against him in the first information report but had gone
back on her word at the trial. As such, her words cannot be taken to inculpate
Tukaram and the Court could not rely on her testimony alone. He was present at
the police station when the incident took place but such circumstantial evidence
is capable of many explanations and does not lead solely to the appellant being
guilty.

THE RATIO
Thus, the Court reversed the Bombay High Court’s conviction and acquitted the
appellants.

IMPACT OF TUKA RAM AND ANR V STATE OF

MAHARASHTRA
This landmark judgement delivered in 1978 led to large scale social outcry and
several legal reforms. It introduced Sections 376 (A), (B), (C) and (D) to the Indian
Penal Code, making custodial rape punishable. Further, Section 114 (A) was
added to the Evidence Act, shifting the burden of proof from the prosecution to
the defence. This means that in certain cases of prosecution for rape, where it is

https://lawbhoomi.com/case-brief-tuka-ram-and-anr-v-state-of-maharashtra/ 6/15
12/19/23, 3:42 PM Case Brief: Tuka Ram And Anr v State of Maharashtra

evident that the accused holds a position of power with respect to the victim, if
the victim states that the sexual intercourse took place without her consent, the
Court will presume that rape had occurred and the onus will be upon the
defendant to prove his innocence by rebutting this presumption. Provisions for
in-camera trials and prohibition of disclosure of the victim’s identity were also
added.

COMMENTS

The most shocking aspect of this judgement is the mentality behind the
reasoning provided by the judges. The Sessions Court and the Supreme Court
have very conveniently ignored the power dynamics involved – Mathura is a tribal
girl and the accused were police persons with immense power and authority
which plays an important role and might have been the cause of her passive
submission, which explains why her body was free of injuries and her failure to
raise an alarm. The insinuation that she is of a promiscuous character, that a girl
who is still in her teenage years accepted invitation to a sexual act from complete
strangers when her brother and the man she was in love with were nearby clearly
shows that the judges’ opinion of her was coloured by the fact that she had been
sexually active previously.

An open letter was written by Upendra Baxi, Raghunath Kelkar, Lotika Sarkar and
Vasudha Dhagamwar to the Chief Justice of India criticising the above judgement.
They put forward several disturbing questions about how the Court can expect a
girl of 14-16 years to successfully raise an alarm and put up stiff resistance
against two able-bodied policemen in a police station with locked doors in the
dark. Further, they contended that should the absence of such injuries and alarm
necessitate that the victim consented, especially in cases such as these where
power was in play? A dumb or a gagged victim cannot raise an alarm, does this
mean that they will be deemed to have consented?

With respect to the handling of semen stains as conclusive evidence, the scholars
state, “Does it believe with the Sessions Judge that Mathura was “habituated to
sexual intercourse” to such an extent? And therefore further think that the semen
marks on Mathura’s clothing could have come from further sexual activities
between the police incident and the next morning when she was medically
examined? What about semen marks on Ganpat’s trousers? Why this double
standard? Ganpat’s sexual habits give him the benefit of doubt of having ‘raped’
Mathura; her sexual habits make the Court disbelieve the story of the rape

https://lawbhoomi.com/case-brief-tuka-ram-and-anr-v-state-of-maharashtra/ 7/15
12/19/23, 3:42 PM Case Brief: Tuka Ram And Anr v State of Maharashtra

altogether!” [5] All this clearly shows that Mathura’s socio-economic status and
her being identified by the Court as a girl who is of an easy virtue stood in the
way of delivery of justice.

For more case briefs, click here.

References

[1] Tuka Ram & Anr. v State of Maharashtra, 1979 AIR 185

[2] Tuka Ram & Anr. v State of Maharashtra, 1979 AIR 185 [3] Tuka Ram & Anr. v
State of Maharashtra, 1979 AIR 185

[4] Tuka Ram & Anr. v State of Maharashtra, 1979 AIR 185 [5] Letter from
Upendra Baxi, Raghunath Kelkar, Lotika Sarkar and Vasudha Dhagamwar to the
Chief Justice of India (16 September 1979)

Contributed by: Snigdha Kajaria and Rithika Reddy Shyamala (Students, Jindal
Global Law School)

The views of the author are personal only. (if any)

Attention all law students!

Are you tired of missing out on internship, job opportunities and law notes?

Well, fear no more! With 45,000+ students already on board, you don't want to
be left behind. Be a part of the coolest legal community around!

Join our WhatsApp Groups (Click Here) and Telegram Channel (Click Here)
and get instant notifications.

NEXT POST
PREVIOUS POST
Implementation of
Case Brief: NLSA v. Union International Laws in
of India India: Role of Indian
Judiciary

https://lawbhoomi.com/case-brief-tuka-ram-and-anr-v-state-of-maharashtra/ 8/15
12/19/23, 3:42 PM Case Brief: Tuka Ram And Anr v State of Maharashtra

You might like

Restitution of Conjugal Rights Difference Between Medical and

Legal Insanity

Kehar Singh vs Union of India

Search LawBhoomi Search

Want to stay updated with new

updates?

Email

Yes!

https://lawbhoomi.com/case-brief-tuka-ram-and-anr-v-state-of-maharashtra/ 9/15
12/19/23, 3:42 PM Case Brief: Tuka Ram And Anr v State of Maharashtra

https://lawbhoomi.com/case-brief-tuka-ram-and-anr-v-state-of-maharashtra/ 10/15
12/19/23, 3:42 PM Case Brief: Tuka Ram And Anr v State of Maharashtra

https://lawbhoomi.com/case-brief-tuka-ram-and-anr-v-state-of-maharashtra/ 11/15
12/19/23, 3:42 PM Case Brief: Tuka Ram And Anr v State of Maharashtra

Law Notes

Case Briefs

Law Notes for All Subjects

Administrative Law Notes

Arbitration & Conciliation Act Notes

Law of Contracts Notes

Constitutional Law Notes

Corporate Law Notes

https://lawbhoomi.com/case-brief-tuka-ram-and-anr-v-state-of-maharashtra/ 12/15
12/19/23, 3:42 PM Case Brief: Tuka Ram And Anr v State of Maharashtra

CRPC Notes

Cyber Law Notes

Environmental Law Notes

Law of Evidence Notes

Family Law Notes

Human Rights Law Notes

International Law Notes

Indian Partnership Act Notes

Indian Penal Code Notes

Intellectual Property Rights Notes

Jurisprudence Notes

Law of Torts Notes

Sale of Goods Act Notes

Transfer of Property Act Notes

Other Laws Notes

Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name * Email * Website

https://lawbhoomi.com/case-brief-tuka-ram-and-anr-v-state-of-maharashtra/ 13/15
12/19/23, 3:42 PM Case Brief: Tuka Ram And Anr v State of Maharashtra

Add Comment *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Post Comment

About LawBhoomi

Started by NLU grads, LawBhoomi is a portal that provides information on the latest
internships, jobs, legal opportunities, law notes, career guidance, study materials, and books
for various exams like the judiciary, CLAT PG, AIBE, CLAT UG, etc. Apart from all these,
interviews and internship experiences help students explore more opportunities in law.

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service

Important Statistics

Site users: 5+ Lakhs

Site viewership: 1.5M+ per month

Instagram followers: 11,000+ (Click Here)

LinkedIn followers: 29,000+ (Click Here)

https://lawbhoomi.com/case-brief-tuka-ram-and-anr-v-state-of-maharashtra/ 14/15
12/19/23, 3:42 PM Case Brief: Tuka Ram And Anr v State of Maharashtra

WhatsApp groups: 30,000+ members (Click Here)

Telegram channel: 7,500+ members (Click Here)

Push subscribers: 55,000+

Contact Info

You may reach out to us by dropping an email to:

contact@lawbhoomi.com or lawbhoomi@gmail.com

Advertise with Us

Copyright © 2022 LawBhoomi.

https://lawbhoomi.com/case-brief-tuka-ram-and-anr-v-state-of-maharashtra/ 15/15