Introduction
The
case named Tukaram & Anr. v State of Maharashtra[1]
was a landmark case as far as rape and its laws are concerned. The incident
took place in 1972, Chandrapur district of Maharashtra which shook the nation.
The decision was given by the Supreme Court was something that caused outrage
within the nation. Several protests were organized by many activists such as Vasudha Dhagamwar (who submitted an open letter to the Chief Justice of
India about this matter) and Upendra Baxi Raghunath Kelkar Lotika Sarkar)
against the decision. Also it led to further introspection and lead to review
of rape laws in India and the definition of consent was redefined.
Facts
of the case
Mathura,
a sixteen-year-old girl, who was an orphan who worked as a house help at the
Nushi’s place. She was in love with Ashok, Nushi’s nephew. Also she developed
sexual relations with him. She wanted to marry him, to which his brother
objected. As a consequence of which he filed a kidnapping case against Ashok
and Nushsi’s husband. The head Constable Baburao recorded the statement. Ashok
as well his family was brought to Police Station. Approximately around 10:30
AM, everyone was heading out of police Stations post recording of their
statements.
The
accused Ganpat asked Mathura to stay while everyone was leaving the station.
The accused turned the lights off, shut the door and allegedly raped her after
asking to disrobe herself, thus outraging the modesty. After he was done, another
accused Tukaram, who was heavily intoxicated, could not rape, but fondled with
her private parts.
Mathura
told her family and friends about the incident. Her hymen exhibited previous
ruptures, but she had no other injuries on her body, according to the medical
examination. She was between the ages of 14 and 16, and her hymen revealed old
ruptures.
Issues
The
Issue before the court was whether there was any activity of rape was committed
by the accused?
Judgment
The
case went through the due judicial process. The judgement given by the three
courts i.e. sessions court, high court and supreme court. The sessions court
went on to give an erroneous decision leading to acquittal of the accused. When
the matter reached to Bombay high court, the decision given by sessions court
was reversed and the accused were convicted. On further appeal to the apex
court the court went on to give absurd decision which led to wide spread
protest and eventually lead to necessary amendments in various legislations.
Session’s
Court
Sessions
court acquitting the accused said that the guilty was habituated to sex and her
consent was obvious in order to satisfy Ganpat, one of the accused. According
to them sexual intercourse did take place but it was not rape.
He
referredto medical reports and concluded that there were no body marks on the
body of the victim, thus use of any kind of force is automatically ruled out.
Also
the medical reports mentioned that the girl is between 14-16 years of age, thus
amounting to rape irrespective of consent[2].
But the judge went on to say that the evidence for the same is not sufficient.
Bombay
High Court
Unlike
the session’s court, the High Court held the accused guilty for rape. They were
of the opinion that what happened over there was a passive submission. And the
same cannot be correlated with consent.
Also,
the fact that no resistance was shown by the girl cannot be concluded as
consent. The policemen were obviously at a superior position, thus showing any
kind of resistance to them would have been detrimental for her and her family.
According
to the High Court, the girl's lack of semen on vaginal smears and pubic hair
was due to the fact that she was checked twenty hoursafter the incident
occurred and that she must have bathed at any point between the incident and
the medical check-up.
The
policemen were complete strangers to the girl. So it is highly unlikely she was
consenting for the act by the policemen.
But
High court did admit that the medical evidence produce is ‘weak evidence’ and
it cannot be admissible.
Supreme
Court
In
1979, the supreme Court gave its verdict and they overturned the High Court’s
decision. The Apex Court had a similar view with that of Session’s Court. They
were of the opinion that this is a case of consensual sex and the girl did
consent for the same.
Also
they didn’t find any injury marks on the victims’ body, thus there was no
resistance from her side.
Aftermath
of the Case
The
judgement led to massive protests from the side of activists, lawyers etc. There
felt was a need of strong and necessary amendments to the existing legislation
that encapsulates all the necessary blunders from the side of Courts.
a)
Medical Test: Medical evidence is admissible in court under Section 45 of the
Indian Evidence Act, which allows medical experts' opinions to be used in
judicial procedures. The Supreme Court, however, determined that because this
is a sort of 'opinion evidence,' it should be considered a 'poor type of
evidence.' In criminal prosecutions, medical evidence has always been crucial.
It tries to prove that either the accused was guilty of rape or that such
evidence can be used to prove that the plaintiff's testimonial was forged,
proving that the victim was a bad person[3].
As an outcome, the sentence of the offender is lowered. As a result, the
Evidence Act's provision 155(4)[4]
was revoked.
In
Pratap Misra v. State of Orissa[5],
the victim was referred to as a "concubine" since she was in a
relationship with a married man and later wedded him in a bigamous marriage.
Three men raped her when she was on a vacation with her husband. The court,
however, acquitted all three on the grounds that the victim had no visible
injuries and thus must have given her consent. Furthermore, throughout
intercourse, she had just wept rather than yelled.The victim of gang rape
miscarried after a few days, and the court stated that if the intercourse had
been forced, she would have miscarried immediately rather than after a few
days.
b)
Testimony of the victim in the court: It is extremely difficult for the victim
to establish the absence of consent, particularly in cases of incarcerated
rape. The victim bears the burden of proof in proving that she was raped
against her will. But then, under the Indian Evidence Act, Section 114A[6]
was inserted, which provides that if victim denied the consent in any cases of
rape, the court shall presume that she did not consent for the
same and the burden of proof of will shift to the defendant[7].
The
Supreme Court ignored the precedent set by Justice Krishna Iyer in Nandini
Satpathy[8],
in which he criticised the practise of summoning ladies to the police station
and declared it a serious breach of Section 160(1)[9] of
the CrPC.
Conclusion
Despite
the fact that India's rape laws have been revised over time, the number of rape
cases continues to rise year after year. This act not only causes significant
bodily harm to the victim, but it also has catastrophic psychological
consequences such as PTSD, depression, flashbacks, sleep difficulties, and
more. Improving the protection and security of women in the state would be one
step toward eliminating this crime. More than strict rules to punish
wrongdoers, men's attitudes and mentalities, such as those of the Supreme Court
Judges in the Mathura Rape Case, need to be changed.
[1]Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 2 SCC 143
[2]Section
375(6) Indian Penal Code, 1860 (act 45 of 1860)
[3]Samiksha Kandya,
'Sentencing in Rape Cases in India: An Analysis' (2021) 26 Supremo Amicus [411]
[4] Section 155 of Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 (act 1 of 1872)
[5] Pratap Misra v. State
of Orissa (1977) 3 S.C.C. 41
[6]Section
114A of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (act 1 of 1872)
[7]Samiksha Kandya,
'Sentencing in Rape Cases in India: An Analysis' (2021) 26 Supremo Amicus [411]
[8] Nandini Satpathy v.
P.L. Dani and Anr., (1978) 2 SCC 424
[9]Section
160(1) od Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (act 2 of 1973)
