Hon’ble Justice Koshal, A.D. Koshal; A.D. Singh, Jaswant, Kailasam, P.S.
15 September, 1978
1979 AIR 185
Section 375 and 376 of Indian Penal Code
This case is basically the Mathura Rape Case in which the three courts gave different judgements and finally justice was delivered in a landmark controversy. In this case, a young girl named Mathura used to live with her brother Gama. Their parents had died during their childhood because of some accident which shook the life of the entire family all around. Since they had no one who could earn at their family, Mathura used to work as a house maid at the house of Nunshi. One day, Mathura met Nunshi’s sister’s son Ashok. Mathura and Ashok started developing feelings for each other. Their bond of feelings was there for quite a lot of days. Mathura and Ashok had sexual intercourse with each other and after that they decided to get married to each other. The things were going quite normal for quite a long. On 26th March, 1972 Gama lodged a Police Complaint because his sister Mathura was missing for quite a lot of days. He told police that he suspected Nunshi, her husband Laxman and Ashok for the kidnapping. All the statements given by Gama were recorded by The Head Constable of Police Baburao, who was the 1st Appellant at around 10:30pm. After few moments, Mathura and Ashok came to the police station. The police constable also took the statements of Ashok and Mathura also with full details regarding the tragedy that happened. After all the investigation, the constable had asked Gama to bring any entry which contained the birth date of Mathura for some police record reasons. As soon as Gama went to complete some formalities, Baburao had asked Mathura to stay at the Police Station. She was not allowed to go before all the formalities were completed. As everyone left the police station i.e. all the officers and the rest of the staff, Baburao had closed the door and switched off the lights of the police station. He took Mathura to the washroom and then he raped her. After Baburao, there was another person (Appellant 2) who stroked at her private parts and tried to rape her but he could not do it because he was highly intoxicated due to Alcohol. Nunshi, Ashok and Gama were waiting for Mathura to come out after completing all the process which was left. As Mathura came out of the police station, she revealed all the story which happened with her inside to all three of them. After that they immediately tried to file a complaint at the police station. She was examined by Dr. Kamal Sashtrakar on 27th March. Doctor said that there were no signs of rape and injury at her private parts. The doctor did not even find any sort of semen or pubic hair. But there was some semen found on her clothes.
- Whether there was any sort of consent given by the girl for Sexual Intercourse?
- Whether the acts committed by the police officers amounts to rape?
- Whether both the appellants are liable under sections 375 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code?
- Whether the High Court made any sort of reversal order of the judgement that was given by the Sessions Court?
This case is based on Mathura Rape Case and it comes under Section 375 and 376 of IPC
The Judgement in this case was totally divided into three different parts based on the opinion of various courts.
If we look into the judgement given by the Session Court, the Judges said that both the appellant were not liable of the rape offence. The judges said that Mathura had given consent for sexual intercourse and thus she was making false stories to Ashok, Gama and Nunshi. Mathura was habituated to sexual intercourse. It was also said that Mathura was a shocking liar who was filled with falsehood and fake story. If there would have been rape, the doctors would have got some evidence of it. In the end the judges said that Mathura did not made any sound because of the fact that she was afraid of Gama, Ashok and Nunshi.
If we look into the judgement of the High Court, the judges had reversed the order of the Sessions Court and said that this was not at all a case of consensual intercourse but it was a case of rape which was committed by both the appellants. A critical distinction was made by the judges between consent and passive submission. The judges also stated one fact that both the accused were strangers and it was obvious that they were not there in order to satisfy her sexual desire. It had been also observed that her statements immediately after the incident to her relatives and crowd clearly states that she was subjected to “forcible sexual intercourse”. The Court further held that the “absence of semen on the vaginal smears and pubic hair” was because of the fact that she was examined 20 hours after the incident and it is presumably for her to have taken a shower in the meantime.
Now, if we look into the judgement delivered by none other than Supreme Court, it was a very comprehensive judgement delivered by them. Their judgement was the same which was delivered by the Sessions Court. The Supreme Court had clearly held that this was a case of consensual sexual intercourse and not at all a case of rape. There was no such evidence of battle found at her private parts and she did not raise any sort of alarm because of which it is clear that Mathura had completely made a false story and tried to deceive all three of them on false grounds and nothing else. It has been also observed that Mathura’s mistake to point out the exact appellant who had raped her further worked against her because the Court stated that if she could go against her initial testimony by changing the accused from Tukaram to Ganpat, it was possible that she had lied about everything else too.
- Protection of “Non- Personal Data” in India: Need of the Hour
- Moot Court Competition: Bennett University
- Moot Court Competition: Om Sterling Global University
- Call for Blogs: NLUO’s CCL Blog
- Call for Papers: GNLU Journal of Law and Technology
- National Moot Court Competition: ICFAI University
- Moot Court Competition: Gautam Buddha University
- Call for Blogs: Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), RGNUL
- Call for Blogs: NLUJ Centre for Intellectual Property Studies Blog
- Call for Blogs: RGNUL Student Research Review
- Call for Papers: Journal of Global Research and Analysis
- Legislative Drafting Competition: SVKM PGCL
- CLAT-Peeps! (10)
- Current Affairs (2)
- competitions (9)
- Conferences and Seminars (92)
- Course and Workshops (55)
- Debates (24)
- Eassy Competitions (35)
- Fellowships & Scholarships (23)
- Guest Blogs (6)
- important (25)
- Internships and Jobs (1,014)
- interviews (8)
- moot court (64)
- Opportuintes (791)
- Job Opportunity (292)
- opportunity (1,176)
- other services (8)
- Our Blog (785)
- Administrative Law (14)
- ADR (11)
- Arms Act (2)
- Case Analysis (155)
- Company law (35)
- Constitutional Law (104)
- Consumer Protection Act (13)
- Contract Law (54)
- CPC (9)
- Criminal Law (111)
- Cyber Law (11)
- Environmental Laws (19)
- Evidence Act (20)
- Family Law (4)
- General (131)
- International Humanitarian Law (3)
- International law (19)
- IPR (4)
- Jurisprudence (10)
- labor laws (3)
- Maritime Laws (1)
- Partnership Act (2)
- personal law (31)
- Taxation (8)
- Tort (58)
- Transfer of Property (1)
- Top Stories (236)
- Uncategorized (451)