This article is written by Ekta Aggarwal pursuing B.A.LL.B from KCC Institute of Legal and Higher Education (affiliated from Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi) during her August,2026 internship at LeDroit India.
Scope of the Article
- Introduction
- Facts of the case
- Issue raised in the case
- Contentions
- Statutory or Legal Framework
- Judgement and reasoning of the Court
- Legal Principles and Significance of the case
- Critical Analysis
- Conclusion
- References
Keywords
Rape, Sexual assault, Sexual penetration, Consent
Abstract
Rape is a type of sexual assault involving sexual intercourse and other forms of sexual penetration without consent. The act is considered rape if it is performed by using force, exploiting authority, threatening or acting against someone who is unable to give a valid consent. In simpler terms, this means that it may be committed against someone who is unconscious or disabled or below a certain age.
In India, 2019 saw an average of 87 cases of rapes recorded and total of 4,05,861 cases of crimes against women, which represents a rise of approximately 7% from 2018. Even though there are laws to protect women in India that are constantly revised, the output is still low. The crime of rape in India is a problem that needs immediate resolution. This paper shall dwell upon Mathura Rape case, that brought all three branches of power in India into action.
- Introduction
On March 26, 1972, the Mathura rape case occurred in India, which was a case of custodial rape. Mathura, a young tribal girl, was raped by two policemen in the police station in Desaiganj. Public outrage and protests followed the Supreme Court exonerating the criminals, resulting in changes in the Indian rape law in the form of The Criminal Law Amendment Act 1983 (No. 43).
The Supreme Court judgment in Tukaram & Another v. State of Maharashtra (1978) marks a significant decision that raises important points regarding the idea of consent in the context of sexual offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The two accused Tukaram and Ganpat who were also Assistant Sub-Inspectors were found guilty by the High Court under Section 376 (rape) and Section 354 (assault or use of criminal force against a woman with intent to outrage her modesty) respectively. The allegations involved the rape of a girl Mathura by the accused in a police station located in Chandrapur, Maharashtra.
There were several significant issues involved in the case, namely, the credibility of the victim evidence, meaning of consent under IPC, interpretation of circumstantial evidence, and the standard of law to be applied for conviction of police officials.
- Facts of the case
Mathura was a 14-16-year-old girl who lived with her brother Gama after the death of their parents. Both Mathura and Gama worked as laborers and Mathura was working at Nunshi’s house. While there, she fell in love with Nunshi’s nephew Ashok and they decided to marry each other. On March 26, 1972, Gama filed a complaint with the police at Desai Gunj alleging the kidnapping of Mathura by Ashok, Nunshi, and her husband Laxman. The police called all of them to the station that night and the Head Constable Baburao recorded their statements. Later in the night Baburao asked them to leave the station and went ahead to close it for the day.
While Mathura was leaving the police station, Constable Ganpat called Mathura back and took her to toilet close by and removed her underwear to see her private parts. After that, he took her to the backside of the police station and raped her. Ganpat fled after raping her, and Constable Tukaram attempted to molest her by touching her private parts but could not succeed in realizing his aim as he was under the influence of alcohol. Mathura reported the incident to the police with the help of Dr. Khume who first examined her.
She also underwent a medical examination on March 27, 1972, at 8 pm by Dr. Kamal Shastrakar. He gave an expert opinion that she had no injuries on her body and that semen was found on the clothes of both Mathura and Ganpat.
- Issues of the case
This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench) dated October 12, 1976, by which the High Court reversed the order of acquittal of both appellants for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code given by the Sessions Judge, Chandrapur on June 1, 1974. The Court also convicted Tukaram, appellant No. 1, under Section 354 of the Code and Ganpat, the second appellant, under Section 376 of the Code of Indian Penal Code. Both appellants were sentenced by the High Court to rigorous imprisonment for a term of 1 year, and 5 years respectively.
- Contentions
- Contention on behalf of Appellant
The appellants claimed that Mathura approved the act of intercourse and that no force was used during it. Also, they pointed out that Mathura did not get injured or resist which referred to that he did not oppose the act being contrary to the appellants’ claim. Their argument showed that Mathura did not resist. They further claimed that Mathura did not show any evidence giving out any signs of trauma after the crime which strengthened their argument that the sexual intercourse was done with her consent.
- Contention on behalf of respondent
Maharashtra, the accused party in the present case, claimed that the victim girl, Mathura’s, account of the events was both credible and believable. Reference was made to the corroboration of her version of events by the available evidence. The accused maintained that the available evidence was sufficient to ascertain that the crime of rape was committed. The medical findings and the girl’s testimony were stated to be adequate to prove the defendant’s guilt.
The accused stated that the sexual intercourse was not consensual and maintained that the evidence proved that Mathura was not willing to engage in the sexual act. The accused further insisted that all proper procedures were adhered to in this matter and that the trial court’s decision was properly based on the evidence and the requirements of the law. The accused denied the client’s allegation that everything had been fabricated and that there was no evidence here.
- Statutory or Legal Framework
- Section 375 (Rape) of Indian Penal Code,1860
According to the statute, rape constitutes acts of sexual penetration (of body part or an object) into a woman’s body (vagina, mouth, urethra, or anus), or from a mouth-to-body contact. Rape is considered to occur in case such acts were performed without the consent of a woman or against her will, or even under threat of death or harm. Consent is invalid if obtained through deception (for instance, wrong assumption of pretended marriage), or if a female person is drunk, insane, or under age of 18.
- Section 376 (Punishment for Rape) of Indian Penal Code, 1860
The punishment for rape is defined in Section 376 of IPC, which prescribes rigorous imprisonment for 10 years to life with a fine. For certain aggravated or heinous circumstances, the law also provides for stricter punishments that include life imprisonment without parole or even capital punishment.
- Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 34 of IPC describes the doctrine of joint liability in crimes. According to this section, if a criminal act is committed by a number of persons in the course of the shared intention of the group, each person is liable for the act as if they did it by themselves.
- Section 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) defines the act of committing assault i.e. applying unlawful force against a woman intending to offend her modesty. It is a serious crime that aims at safeguarding a woman’s dignity. The punishment in this case can be imprisonment for a period of 1-5 years or a fine or both. The nature of this crime is cognizable and non- bailable.
- Judgement and reasoning of the Court
Justice A.D. Koshal- led Bench of the Supreme Court heard the appeals against the High Court’s order whereby the lower court’s acquittal was overturned and the appellants convicted. It was alleged by the prosecution that Ganpat had forcibly raped Mathura at the police station. Tukaram was said to have touched her private parts after the rape incident.
The High Court based its judgment mainly on the testimony of the victim and circumstantial evidence, including the finding of semen on the clothes of the victim and the placement of the appellants in the police station. On the other hand, the Supreme Court critically analyzed the evidence and pointed out the lack of consistency in the victim’s version and also noted the absence of direct evidence proving the presence of force or injury.
In the end, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to demonstrate that because of the lack of the reference of consent and coercion under Section 375, the conviction for rape could not be sustained. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and acquitted both the appellants.
- Legal Principles and Significance of the case
Under the circumstances explained in this case we reach a conclusion that the intercourse involved in this case is not proved to be rape and the prosecution could not connect Ganpat with any crime.
As per the reasoning of the High Court the only charge brought against Tukaram was that he had touched the private parts of the girl once she was left by Ganpat. The same High Court noted that in the first information report made by the girl against Tukaram there were serious allegations but she herself changed her testimony during the trial attributing the acts described in her first information report against Tumaram were in fact committed by Ganpat. The acts consisted of Tukaram grabbing the girl in the first place and taking her to the washroom behind the main house and switching the torch on to examine her private parts.
If the girl had the ability to change her stance regarding the grave accusations, how could we be sure that what she had just said about Tukaram was the truth? It seems to us that the High Court was influenced by the fact that Tukaram was at the police station when the alleged incident took place and that he left the police station in the aftermath of the event. We do not find this fact to be incriminating and believe that there can be other circumstances explaining it. Therefore, we would not believe the girl in the context of Tukaram and would state that he is not guilty.
Accordingly, the result is in our favor and the appeal is granted.
- Critical Analysis
Following the Mathura Rape Case, a series of protests erupted by lawyers and activists. There was considerable discontent regarding how the case was addressed by the Court and observed substantial problems with the workings of the justice system as a whole. The opinion that the use of the controversial two-finger test in assessing the sexual assault cases was wrong because it was a breach and had some defects was expressed. Importantly, although it was used widely, the test did not play a significant role in the matter because the Court rendered it ineffective due to its failure to take it into consideration.
Some people insisted that the Court should have paid attention to the peculiarities of the situation where power relations should have influenced the Court’s perception of the case. The focus on Mathura’s supposed consent and sexual history was incorrect on the part of the Court, which instead of concentrating on the wrongdoing of the police officers and violation of Mathura’s rights questioned whether she had given consent.
As a consequence, in 1983, the Indian legislators included Section 228A to the Indian Penal Code when enacting the Criminal Law Amendment Act, with the objective of assuring the victims of their privacy and changing the responsibility of proving the facts. The Criminal Law Amendment Act also fixed higher penalties for custodial rape, and made in-camera proceedings mandatory during the trials related to rape. Moreover, in an open letter where they stressed the need of respect for civil rights and justice impartiality, legal scholars commented on the need of reconsidering the case.
- Conclusion
It is evident from the above discussion that there is no evidence of the sexual act in question constituting rape and thus, the appellant Ganpat is not found guilty of any charge. For this reason, the appeal must be allowed. The judgment of the High Court is quashed along with the conviction and sentence imposed upon Ganpat Appellant.
