User:Media-hound- thethird/sandbox mathura

The Mathura rape case was a complex and long drawn out legal case (1972 to 1978), which caused widespread reaction in India. It is described as "classic instance of a gender insensitive court". The case lead to widespread campaigning for changes in India's rape laws and resulted in changes that made Custodial Rape illegal under The Criminal Law Amendment Act (1983) - Section 376(2) of the Indian penal code (IPC).

The amendments to the IPC introduced the legal concept of special forms of rape. These included rape by a police officer within the premises of a police station; rape by a public servant of his junior while taking advantage of his official position; rape by an official in a jail or remand home of an inmate; rape by someone on the staff of a hospital of a woman in the hospital; rape of a pregnant women; rape of a, girl under 12 years of age and gang rape. It also introduced mandatory sentencing of a minimum of 10 years for such cases.

The rape allegation - 1972

Mathura, described as a tribal girl from the Chandrapur district of Maharashtra, was allegedly raped by two police officers on 26th of March, 1972, whilst at, Desai Ganj Police Station. Mathura's parents had both died and she had been living with her brother Gama. She also had an aunt called Nunshi and Uncle, her aunt's husband, Laxman.

Mathura was not educated and worked as a labourer, and worked at the home of her aunt and uncle. There she had met Ashok who she developed a relationship with and they became husband and wife. Mathura had entered into a common law marriage and was living with her husband Ashok at her aunt's home.

Mathura's brother objected and made complaint to the police, claiming Mathura had been kidnapped by her aunt Nunshi, her uncle Laxman and her husband Ashok. It was also claimed that Mathura was below the age of 16, and so it was not possible for her to be married.

Mathura, her aunt Nunshi, uncle Laxman and husband Ashok were brought to Desai Ganj Police Station. Her brother was also present and was waiting to make a formal complaint (a panchmana). Mathura and her husband Ashok were interviewed and the senior police constable required that proof of Mathura's age be produced by her brother Gama.

Mathura, Her aunt Nunshi, Her brother Gama, Laxman and Ashok were told they could leave. The senior constable also left immediately. It was approximately 10.30 pm.

Whilst leaving Mathura was told to wait by officers Ganpat and Tukaram, and the others, including her brother and aunt, were made to leave and wait outside for Mathura.

Mathura reported she was taken by two police officers to the area at the back of the Police station and raped. Those outside the station became concerned and called to her and received no response. Mathura reported that she had been raped by Ganpat whilst Tukaram watched. Tukaram had then attempted to rape her but been unable to penetrate her as he was drunk. Those outside the station became concerned and alarmed when the lights in the station were turned off and they then found the door to the station locked from within.

Mathura's family and husband went to the rear of the station compound and called for mathura. There was no response. Their calls attracted a crowd. Officer Tukaram came out of the back entrance to the station and claimed that Mathura had left the station. Officer Tukaram then left the police station himself. Shortly afterwards, Mathura also came out of the same entrance and reported that she had been raped. Mathura was taken to see a doctor immediately by her aunt Nunshi and it was reported to the doctor she had been raped. The doctor told Mathura and her aunt they had to return to the police station and lodge a complaint.

The senior constable was made to come back to the station – a crowd had gathered and they threatened to burn down the police station. A formal complaint was taken from mathira. She was examined by another doctor concerning the rape allegations the next day, 27 Mar 1974, at 8pm, some 20 hours after the alleged rape. The doctor reported that mathura was habituated to sex, had using the two finger test to examine her vagina. Her hyman was broken and showed old scars indicating that she had lost her virginity some time before. Seamen was found on her clothing. Seamen was also found on the clothing of officer Ganpat. Vaginal swabs showed no seamen, and no seamen was found in samples of Mathura's pubic hair taken at the medical examination.

Session Court - 1974

The rape case came before the sessions court on 1st June, 1974. The judge found under indian law that there had been no rape. He also stated that Mathura was "a shocking liar" and thay heer testimony was accused Mathura of being a liar and also found that as she was “Habituated to sexual intercourse” her consent was voluntary and so no charges of rape could be proved.

The judge further concluded that Mathra had agreed to sex with the two officers amd then become worried about the reaction of her Husband and the people waiting outside the station. She had therefore covered he own voluntary sexual behaviour with the two police officers, claiming to have been raped so that suspicion was diverted from herself. The judge also concluded that as Mathura had not called for help and not resisted with sufficient force to have suffered injury she had consented to the sexual acts.

Officers Ganpat and Tukaram were acquitted.

Bombay High Court - 1976

An appeal was heard Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court, 12th October 1976, which set aside the judgement and found that police officers Ganpat and Tukaram had in fact raped Mathura.

The Bombay high court agreed first that Mathura had been 16 years of age at the time. However, they considered the circumstances and concluded that it was not reasonable to belive that a 16 year old woman, in the dead of night in the middle of a dispute which invllved her bortyher claining she had been kidnapped and her common law husband and others waiting for her a short distance away would decide to have sex with two strangers, police officers, in a police station.

The court decided that it was unreasonable to belive that Mathura had simply agreed to have sex with two starngers, but that the circumstances did indicate that she had been obliged to aquiesce to the sexual activity out of fear and the sex had not neen consensula and was therfore rape. The court concluded that passive submission due to threat could not be taken as consent, and so Mathura had been raped.

The earlier 1974 regional court aquittal was quashed and the accused officers found guilty. They were sentenced to 5 years in prison.

India Supreme Court - 1978

The Bombay High Court Decision was appealed to the Indian Supreme Court. The court decision was handed down 15 Sept 1978. “Ram Jethmalani”, senior counsel defending Ganpat and Tukaram split the legal argument into two areas, Express Consent and Implied Consent. It was argued that as Mathura was uninjured and had not called for help she had given implied consent and therefore could not have been raped. The Supreme court accepted these arguments.

They reasoned that Mathura has claimed to call out in protest to the actions of officers Ganpat and Tukaram but as no-one had heard her calls she had not called for help, or not called with sufficient power to indicate she was in distress. The Supreme court also decided that lack of injury indicated passive submission and agreement to sex. The circumstances and environment were discounted. Officers Ganpat and Tukaram were again acquitted.

Open Letter - 1979

The findings of the Supreme Court prompted four professors of law to write and open letter questioning the decision. The authors were professors Upendra Baxi, Lotika Sarkar, Raghunath Kelkar and Vasudha. Dhagamwar. They asked the Supreme court:

"Your Lordship, does the Indian Supreme Court expect a young girl ... when trapped by two policemen inside a police station, to successfully raise alarm for help? Does it seriously expect the girl, a labourer, to put up such stiff resistance against well-built policemen so as to have substantial marks of injury?"

The proffessors were of the opinion that the supreme court had erred and failed to reach a rational jusgdement in accordance with the Indian Constitution.

National Newspapers refused to prnt the letter, taking the view that it was old news on a case that was closed. However, national women's groups took the content and the call for the case to be reassesd as valid and commenced camapigning to require the Supreme Court to review it's decsion.