Citations: Tuka Ram and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 185
Date of Judgment: 15th September 1978
Equivalent Citations: 1979 AIR 185, 1979 SCR (1) 810
Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 1977
Case Type: Criminal Appeal
Appellants: Tuka Ram and Anr.
Respondent: State of Maharashtra
Bench: Hon’ble Justice A.D. Koshal, Hon’ble Justice Jaswant Singh and Hon’ble Justice P.S. Kailasam
Court: Supreme Court of India
Statutes Referred:
- Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 34, 354, 375, 376
Facts:
- Mathura, a young girl lived with her brother Gama after the death of her parents. She and Gama would work as labourers at Nunshi. There she came in contact with Nunshi’s nephew Ashok. They both developed an intimate relationship and thus decided to get married.
- On 26th March 1972, Gama lodged a report at police station Desai Gunj alleging that Mathura had been kidnapped by Nunshi, her husband Laxman and Ashok. These statements were recorded by the Head Constable Baburao around 09:00 PM. He also who recorded the statements of the two lovers. By that time, it was 10:30 PM and Baburao asked all of them to leave asking Gama to bring a copy of the entry regarding the birth of Mathura and he himself left for his house.
- While the four of them were leaving, Constable Ganpat asked Mathura to come inside with him. Immediately after that he took her at the back of the police station and sexually assaulted her by taking her by staring at her private parts using a torch. After satisfying his lust, Head Constable Tukaram fondled her private parts. He intended to rape her but failed as he was in a highly intoxicated state.
- While Ashok, Nunshi, Gama waited for Mathura outside the police station grew suspicious when they found the lights of the police station switched off. After a while when she came out of the police station and narrated the incident to them. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged by her. On 27th Mach 1972, Mathura was examined by Dr. Kamal Shastrakar but no injuries were to be found on her body nor any signs of intercourse. However, Presence of semen was detected on Mathura’s and Ganpat’s clothes.
Issues Involved:
- Whether the consent was given freely by the girl for sexual intercourse?
- Whether Tukaram (appellant no.1) shall be held liable under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code and Ganpat (appellant no.2) under Section 376?
Contention of Appellant:
The counsel for Appellant contented that:
- There is no direct evidence about the nature of the consent of the girl to the act of sexual intercourse. Hence, one could not arrive at the conclusion that the girl had been subjected to or was under any fear or compulsion as would justify an inference of any “passive submission.”
- The alleged intercourse was a peaceful affair and the story of stiff resistance is all false.
- The allegation made by the girl that she had shouted loudly is false.
Contention of Respondent:
The counsel for Respondent contented that:
- The appellants raped and sexually assaulted Mathura on 26th March 1972 at the Desai Gunj Police Station when Gama had filed a complaint that she had been kidnapped by Nunshi’s family. The statements were recorded by Head Constable Baburao and had asked them to leave the station. But Mathura was asked to stay by appellant, Ganpat. Immediately after that he took her at the back of the police station and sexually assaulted her by taking her by staring at her private parts using a torch. He then raped her despite her stiff resistance.
- It was also contented that appellant Tukaram fondled her private parts. He intended to rape her but failed as he was in a highly intoxicated state.
- On medical examination, the Doctor detected the presence of semen on the clothes of Mathura and appellant Ganpat.
- The age of the girl was estimated to be 14-16 years.
Judgment:
Session Court’s Judgment:
- The learned Sessions Judge found that there was no satisfactory evidence to prove that Mathura was below 16 years of age on the date of the occurrence. He further held that she was “a shocking liar” whose testimony “is riddled with falsehood and improbabilities”. He stated that in all probability she had sexual intercourse with Ganpat.
- He added however that there was a world of difference between “sexual intercourse” and “rape”. Mathura had the intercourse with Ganpat with her own free will. He then concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants.
High Court’s Judgment:
- The High Court reversed the judgment of Sessions Court. It found that the sexual intercourse was forcible and amounted to rape. Since both the accused were strangers to Mathura, it was untrue that she would invite the accused to satisfy her sexual desire.
- About appellant Tuka Ram, the Court believed that he had not made any attempt to rape the girl but took her word for granted as he was alleged to have fondled her private parts after the act of sexual intercourse by Ganpat appellant.
- The High Court convicted the sentenced appellant Tukaram with one year imprisonment and appellant Ganpat with five years of imprisonment.
Supreme Court’s Judgment:
- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of High Court and the conviction recorded against as well as the sentences imposed upon the appellants were set aside and thus set free, as the girl changed her statement on will, what could be the assurance that the statement was true in the first place?
The Appellants were set free as the victim changed her statement at will during trial.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court stated that the nature of the consent of the victim was not “passive”. In addition to that there was no injury on the person of the girl. Hence it could not arrive at the conclusion that the girl had been subjected to or was under any fear of compulsion such as would justify an inference of any “passive submission”.
Conclusion:
This judgment resulted in amending Section 114 (A) of the Indian Evidence Act which earlier said that if victim said that there was no consent then the court will presume that there was no consent taken for the sexual intercourse. The judgment resulted in the passing of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1983. Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was amended which now says that custodial rape is an offence punishable for no less than 7 years the identity of rape victims was also protected after this amendment.
Drafted By: Kimi Kantak, Govind Ramnath Kare College of Law
Edited by: Aashima Kakkar, Associate Editor, Law Insider
Published On: October 11, 2021 at 19:31 IST