Mathura Rape Case
Author: Yukti Kohli
Co-Author: Siddharth Khaira
Jagran Lakecity University
ISSN: 2581-8465
Abstract
The present case has all the ingredients of section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, and the onus to prove the same is always on the prosecution.
This is an appeal placed under special leave provision which is against the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court dated 12 October 1976, whereby the judgment of acquittal was reversed for the offence under section 376 which is to be read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code,1860. The Session Judge convicted appellant Tukaram under section 354 of Indian Penal Code and appellant Ganpat under section 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Mathura is a girl who lives with her brother as her parents died when she was a child. Both Mathura and her brother worked as labors to earn their livelihood. On 26 March 1972, in Desai Gunj police station a report was filed whereby, it was alleged that Mathura has been kidnapped by Nunshi, Laxman ( Nunshi’s husband ) and Ashok. At that instance, all the three of them complained against.
Ganpat took Mathura to a latrine situated in the police station and removed Mathura’s Underwear thereafter lit the torch in order to view her private parts. Mathura was used to sexual intercourse as she was so much in love with Ashok. There were no injuries found on the body of the girl which can be considered as a peaceful submission for the act so performed. Hence it is concluded by the judge that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants.
The charges against the accused are unproven and the statements of the girl are not taken in relation to Tukaram.
Paper on Mathura Rape Case
This is an appeal placed under special leave provision which is against the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court dated 12 October 1976, whereby the judgment of acquittal was reversed for the offence under section 376 which is to be read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code,1860. The Session Judge convicted appellant Tukaram under section 354 of Indian Penal Code and appellant Ganpat under section 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Facts of the case
Mathura is a girl who lives with her brother as her parents died when she was a child. Both Mathura and her brother worked as labours to earn their livelihood. Mathura was working in the house of Nunshi, where she met Nunshi’s brother Ashok. Both Mathura and Ashok liked each other and had an affair and a physical relation and therefore decided to get married.
On 26 March 1972, in Desai Gunj police station a report was filed whereby, it was alleged that Mathura has been kidnapped by Nunshi, Laxman ( Nunshi’s husband ) and Ashok. At that instance, all three of them complained against. This was recorded by the head constable Babu. The Babu asked Gama to bring a copy of the birth proves of Mathura. At this, both the appellants were present in the police station and it was around 10:30 in the night. Hence Babu after recording the statement of lovers in the register went to his house to have the meal.
When Mathura, Nunshi, Laxman, and Gama were leaving from the police station, one of the appellants asked Mathura to stay in the police station for some more time for the inquiries and asked others to wait outside the police station.
When Mathura was alone at that time, Ganpat took Mathura to a latrine situated in the police station and removed Mathura’s Underwear thereafter lit the torch in order to view her private parts. And then after sometimes dragged her to the back verandah where he raped Mathura even after her protest. Later the other appellant Tukaram came in the back of the verandah and he also wanted to rape her but was unable to satisfy himself as he was highly intoxicated.
Nunshi along with Laxman and Gama was waiting outside the police station for Mathura. After some time the lights went off in the police station which made the three of them suspicious and when they went to the gate of the police station gate the gate was closed from inside. On seeing this Nunshi called for Mathura but there was no response from the other side. After listening to the calling from Nunshi for Mathura, Tukaram came from the rear and told Nunshi that Mathura had already left the police station. Thereafter Mathura came from inside the police station and told them about what happened inside the police station.
Mathura was taken to the doctor immediately where she was examined by the doctor and then went to the police station to lodge a complaint against both the appellant, where the head constable Baburao told her statement which was considered as the first information report. The crowd outside the police station threatens the policeman that they will burn the police station and will beat the appellant Ganapati.
Dr. Kamal examined Mathura for hours. On examination, he estimated the age of the girl is between 14 to 16 years. She had old ruptures in her hymen. The girl was having no injury in person. There was no semen present on the vaginal smear slides, whereas there was the presence of semen on the pajama of the constable and the clothes of the girl. The vagina could easily admit two fingers and there was no matting of the pubic hair.
Observation and judgement
The learned Session Judge found that the girl was above the age of 16 years when this occurrence happened. There is a lot of difference between the word rape and sexual intercourse and the rape is been committed is not yet been proved. The judge, therefore, is of the opinion that the girl is lying and has formed the story of rape and confinement in the police station. Mathura was used to sexual intercourse as she was so much in love with Ashok. Hence it is concluded by the judge that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants.
The High Court agreed with the decision of the trial court on the topic of the age of the girl. But had a different view with the semen present on the clothes of Mathura and the accused Ganpat. The fact that the semen was not present on the pubic hair and the vagina can be a possibility that the girl had taken bath as she was examined by the doctor after 20 hours of the event.
The high court was further of opinion that the girl did not know any of the accused with whom she could satisfy her sexual needs. Therefore it is highly improper able that it was a consented sexual intercourse. And hence it can be concluded that it was forcible intercourse. This is totally impossible that a girl who came with her brother would get into a consented sexual intercourse. And according to all this observation, it is very much clear that the girl did not invite the accused to satisfy her needs. The accused were the ones who forced her to have a sexual act. Her presence at the old timings in the police station had been misused by the policeman and her statements given to the head constable and to the public after the incident is another proves of the fact that she was forced for sexual intercourse.
The learned Session Court judge and the high court judge were of the same view that the girl had built a false story of resistance and shouting out loud for help. There were no injuries found on the body of the girl which can be considered as a peaceful submission for the act so performed. The high court observed that the girl was alone in the police station in the night she the others were asked to leave and it is a possibility that the girl had peacefully submitted in the fear of the authorities and therefore this cannot be considered as consent given by the girl for the act in the eyes of law.
But the doubt is that the girl’s statement itself has some errors. She told me that she raised a voice when she was pulled from the front door by the appellant Ganapat when she and Gama were leaving from the police station. She even cried loud when Ganapat was losing her underwear and looking at her private parts. It can be considered that as Mathura was in the hands of the authority, therefore, she trusted them and allowed them to take her back to the police station by holding her hand when she leaving from the police station from the front door after giving the statement to the head constable. But the immediate reaction of a person would be crying for help because one cannot realize who has caught hold of her hand.
The present case has all the ingredients of section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, and the onus to prove the same is always on the prosecution.
It can be concluded with the observation that the sexual intercourse which is in question does not prove rape and therefore no offence was committed by Ganpat. The high court thinks that when the incident happened Tukaram was present in the police station and left after the incident. This is considered as not inculpatory and expects more explanation for the same. Therefore the charges against the accused are unproven and the statements of the girl are not taken in relation to Tukaram.
Hence the appeal is accepted by the court. And thereby the judgment of the lower court and the statements provided by the girl are not considered and are kept aside.