Mathura, and the Amendment It Forced

In one line

The acquittal that produced the modern Indian law of consent, and the four things about its reasoning that an answer must be able to name.

In the wording a student can write in an exam: in Tuka Ram v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 185, the Supreme Court acquitted two policemen of the rape of Mathura, a girl of between fourteen and sixteen, inside the Desai Gunj police station, holding that the onus is always on the prosecution to prove affirmatively each ingredient of the offence, that the High Court had made no finding that her consent was obtained by putting her in fear of death or of hurt so that the third clause of section 375 of the Indian Penal Code did not apply, that there could have been no such fear because she had been taken away from among her near and dear ones, and that the intercourse was not proved to amount to rape; and the open letter written by four law teachers in response, and the campaign that followed, produced the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1983, which created the offence of custodial rape and inserted a presumption of the absence of consent in such a case.

The facts, which have to be given

Mathura was an orphan, living with her brother Gama, both working as labourers. She had formed an intimacy with Ashok and they had decided to marry. Her brother lodged a report at the Desai Gunj police station alleging that she had been kidnapped.

All concerned were brought to the police station at about nine at night, and statements were recorded. At about half past ten the Head Constable directed everybody to leave. The two appellants, a Head Constable and a Constable attached to the station, then asked Mathura to wait and told her companions to leave.

The prosecution case was that Ganpat took her into a latrine and raped her, then dragged her to a chhapri at the back and raped her again, and that Tuka Ram thereafter fondled her private parts. Those waiting outside grew suspicious, shouted, and drew a crowd, and a complaint was lodged.

The medical evidence. She had no injury on her person. Her hymen showed old ruptures. The vagina admitted two fingers easily. Her age was estimated at between fourteen and sixteen. No semen was found on her.

The courts below. The Sessions Court acquitted. The High Court convicted, reasoning that the accused were strangers to her, that it was improbable she would make overtures to them, that the initiative must therefore have come from them, and that she could not have resisted it.