MATHURA CASE SUMMARY

Tukaram v State of Maharashtra is a notorious case, also known as the “Mathura Rape Case.” The ruling and opinions of the Sessions court, along with the decision rendered by the nation’s highest court, caused a national outcry.

In addition to the statements made by the lower and supreme courts, the mathura case was highly contentious because it addressed the concept of custodial rape, questioned “passive consent,” and discussed the significance of a woman’s “chastity or virginity” in rape cases. Nationwide outrage over sexual assault along with other crimes against women was triggered by this case.

Mathura case summary

Mathura case summary facts:

• According to the prosecution, Mathura, a girl between the ages of 14 and 16, was sexually assaulted by the appellants in the police station. Mathura has lived with her brother Gama ever since his death when she was a young child. They both worked, and that was how they made ends meet.
  
• Mathura had the chance to meet Ashok, Nunshi’s sister’s son, while she worked for the company. Their continued closeness to one another led them to decide to get married.
  
• Gama lodged a complaint on March 26, 1972, alleging Mathura had been abducted by Nunshi, her husband, and her nephew. At the request of Chief Constable Baburao, the statements made by Ashok and Mathura were recorded. Everyone was asked to leave at around 10:30 p.m., and Gama was told to get a copy of the document with Mathura’s birthdate on it.
  
• Mathura was asked to wait at the police station while the appellants left. When Mathura followed the instructions, Ganpat (also known as appellant No.1) immediately pulled her to a Chhapri where he sexually assaulted her again. Moreover, it is asserted that Tukaram (also referred to as appellant No. 2) touched her private parts but was too drunk to rape her.
  
• While waiting for Mathura outside the police station, Nunshi, Gama, and Ashok noticed that the station’s lights had been turned off and the front door was closed from the inside. This made them suspicious. They consequently yelled and attracted attention. The physician who had first seen her later counseled against lodging a complaint against the two police constables.
  
• 8:00 p.m. on March 27, 1972. The doctor examined the child and found no evidence of physical harm or signs of her having engaged in sexual activity. However, semen was discovered on the girl’s attire as well as on appellant No. 1’s pajamas.

Mathura case summary issues:

The mathura case update issues are:

• Did the young girl consent to her doing the act?
  
• Will Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, or “IPC,” be applied in the appellants’ prosecution?
  
• Does the applicable section of the IPC regard the police officer’s actions as rape?
  
• Is it accurate to say that the court found the police officer not guilty?

Mathura case judgment:

The mathura case judgment are as follows:

• In the mathura case update, a ruling was rendered in 1979. On the bench, it included Justices A.D. Koshal, Jaswant Singh, and P.S. Kailasam (J).
  
• The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court and upheld the Sessions Court’s position. According to the Apex Court, the consent was not offered in a passive way.
  
• The Apex Court also considered the girl’s lack of physical harm, resistance, and failure to issue an alert, among other factors. The court disregarded the fact that she was forced to give her consent for a number of reasons.
  
• As per the mathura case update, the court deemed the rape incident to be a “peaceful affair”. The outcomes of “the two-finger test,” which is incredibly demeaning to a rape victim, were also taken into account by the court. As a result, the two criminals were declared not guilty.

Mathura case: Aftermath

• There was a nationwide outcry against the Supreme Court’s rulings following its decision, with people expressing disapproval in large numbers.
  
• Professor Upendra Baxi, dean of the University of Delhi law school, wrote an open letter to the Chief Justice of India in this regard. Three eminent legal scholars from the nation, Vasudha Dhagamwar, Raghunath Kelkar, and Lotika Sarkar, also signed the letter.
  
• The 16 September 1979 open letter went viral among the public and was published in numerous national and international newspapers.
  
• The letter’s main prayers were to:
  
• Transfer the burden of proof from the victim to the accused.
  
• More severe penalties for rape.
  
• The law forbids the rape victim’s real name from being mentioned in public.
  
• Outlawing ridiculous two-finger tests conducted on victims’ bodies.
  
• The Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1983 allowed for the addition of Section 114 A to the Indian Evidence Act. The accused now has the burden of proof in this section. Consequently, even in the absence of supporting evidence, the court will assume that there was non-consensual sexual contact between the accused and the victim if it has been established that such contact occurred.

For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf