Search Wikipedia Search Create account Log in

Mathura rape case 4 languages

Contents hide Article Talk Read Edit View history Tools

(Top) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The incident
The Mathura rape case was an incident of custodial rape in India on 26 March 1972, wherein Mathura, a young tribal girl, was allegedly raped by two
The case policemen on the compound of Desaiganj Police Station in Gadchiroli district of Maharashtra. After the Supreme Court acquitted the accused, there was
Aftermath public outcry and protests, which eventually led to amendments in the Indian rape law via The Criminal Law Amendment Act 1983 (No. 43) .[1][2]

Legal reform
The incident [ edit ]
Legacy
Mathura was a young orphan tribal girl was living with one of her two brothers.[3] She was an Adivasi. The incident is suspected to have taken place on
See also
26 March 1972, she was between 14 and 16 years old at that time.[3] Mathura occasionally worked as a domestic helper with a woman named Noshi.[4]
References She met Noshi's nephew named Ashok who wanted to marry her, but her brother did not agree to the union and went to the local police station to lodge a
Bibliography complaint claiming that his sister, a minor, was being kidnapped by Ashok and his family members. After receiving the complaint, the police ahuthority
brought Ashok and his family members to the police station. Following general investigation, Mathura, her brother, Ashok, and his family members were
Further reading
permitted to go back home. However, as they were leaving, Mathura was asked to stay behind while her relatives were asked to wait outside.[5] Mathura
External links was then raped by the two policemen.

When her relatives and the assembled crowd threatened to burn down the police chowky, the two accused policemen, Ganpat and Tukaram, reluctantly
agreed to file a panchnama (legal recording of evidence).[6][7]

The case [ edit ]

The case came for hearing on 1 June 1974 in the sessions court. The judgment returned found the defendants not guilty. It was stated that because
Mathura was 'habituated to sexual intercourse', her consent was voluntary; under the circumstances only sexual intercourse could be proved and not
rape.[6][7]

On appeal, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court set aside the judgment of the Sessions Court, and sentenced the accused to one and five years
imprisonment respectively. The Court held that passive submission due to fear induced by serious threats could not be construed as consent or willing
sexual intercourse.[6]

However, in September 1979 the Supreme Court of India justices Jaswant Singh, Kailasam and Koshal in their judgement on Tukaram vs. State of
Maharashtra reversed the High Court ruling and again acquitted the accused policemen. The Supreme Court held that Mathura had raised no alarm; and
also that there were no visible marks of injury on her body thereby suggesting no struggle and therefore no rape.[6] The judge noted, "Because she was
used to sex, she might have incited the cops (they were drunk on duty) to have intercourse with her".[8][9]

Aftermath [ edit ]

In September 1979, only a few days after the verdict was pronounced, law professors Upendra Baxi,Raghunath Kelkar and Lotika Sarkar of Delhi
University and Vasudha Dhagamwar of Pune wrote an open letter to the Supreme Court, protesting the concept of consent in the judgment. "Consent
involves submission, but the converse is not necessarily true...From the facts of case, all that is established is submission, and not consent...Is the taboo
against pre-marital sex so strong as to provide a license to Indian police to rape young girls."[8] Spontaneous widespread protests and demonstrations
followed by women's organisations who demanded a review of judgement, receiving extensive media coverage.[10]

A number of women's group were formed as a direct response to the judgment, including Saheli in Delhi, and prior to that in January 1980, Lotika Sarkar,
was also involved in the formation of the first feminist group in India against rape, "Forum Against Rape", later renamed "Forum Against Oppression of
Women" (FAOW). A national conference was organised by FAOW which started the debate for legal reforms. Issues of violence against women and the
difficulty of seeking judicial help in sexual crimes was highlighted by the women's movement.[11][12][13]

Following the same tradition, on the International Women's day women from various states including Delhi, Mumbai, Hyderabad and Nagpur took to the
streets. Seema Sakhare, the founder of the first organizations in India that worked on the issue of violence against women, met and supported
Mathura.[3] However, the courts ruled that there was no locus standi (legal standing) in the case to rule in favour to Mathura.[14] Eventually this led to
Government of India amending the rape law.[6][13]

Legal reform [ edit ]

The Criminal Law Amendment Act 1983 (No. 43) made a statutory provision in the face of Section 114 (A) of the Evidence Act made 25 December 1983,
which states that if the victim says that she did not consent to the sexual intercourse, the Court shall presume that she did not consent as a rebuttable
presumption.[6][15][16] New laws were also enacted following the incident. The Section 376 (punishment for rape) of the Indian Penal Code underwent a
change with the enactment and addition of Section 376(A), Section 376(B), Section 376(C), Section 376(D), which made custodial rape punishable.[17]
Besides defining custodial rape, the amendment shifted the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused once intercourse was established; it also
added provisions for in-camera trials, the prohibition on the victim identity disclosure, and tougher sentences.[11][18]

Legacy [ edit ]

The case is seen as turning point in women right's movement in India, as it led to just greater awareness of women's legal rights issue, oppression, and
patriarchal mindsets. A number of women's organisations soon came forth across India. Previously, rape misjudgments or acquittals would go unnoticed,
but in the following years, women's movement against rape gathered force and organisation supporting rape victims and women's rights advocates came
to the fore.[11][13][19] The criminal law amendment Act 1983 was enacted as a consequence of this case. Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code for
example was enacted because of this incident.[20]

See also [ edit ]

Rape in India
Anti-rape movement

References [ edit ]

1. ^ "Older friends" . Mid-day. 13 January 2013. Retrieved 8 June 2013. 10. ^ Michael T. Kaufman (20 April 1980). "Rape Case Reversal Infuriates
2. ^ B. Suguna (1 January 2009). Women S Movements . Discovery Indian Women's Groups; Assaults on Women Reported 'I was Appailed'
Publishing House. pp. 66–. ISBN 978-81-8356-425-0. Retrieved 9 June Class and Sexist Prejudice" . The New York Times. Retrieved 6 June
2013. 2013.
3. ^ a b c Basu, Moni (8 November 2013). "The Girl Whose Rape Changed A 11. ^ a b c Epp, p. 105
Country" . CNN. Retrieved 7 December 2013. 12. ^ "In memoriam: Lotika Sarkar 1923 – 2013" . feministsindia.com. 25
4. ^ Basu, Moni (8 November 2013). "The Girl Whose Rape Changed A February 2013. Retrieved 4 June 2013.
Country" . CNN. Archived from the original on 5 December 2013. 13. ^ a b c Gamble, p. 59
Retrieved 7 December 2013. 14. ^ Khullar, p. 133
5. ^ Maya Majumdar (1 January 2005). Encyclopaedia of Gender Equality 15. ^ "Rape law, a double-edged sword in India" . CNN-IBN. 18 June 2009.
Through Women Empowerment . Sarup & Sons. pp. 297–. ISBN 978-81- Archived from the original on 22 June 2009. Retrieved 6 June 2013.
7625-548-6. Retrieved 9 June 2013.[permanent dead link] 16. ^ "Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act. 46 of 1983, 113 (A) and 114
6. ^ a b c d e f Indira, Jaising (20 January 1999). "Slamming the doors of justice (A)" (PDF). Law Commission of India. p. 265. Retrieved 13 June 2013.
on women" . The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 9 July 17. ^ Jain, p. 12
2019. Retrieved 2 June 2012. 18. ^ Laxmi Murthy (8 June 2013). "From Mathura to Bhanwari" . Economic
7. ^ a b Kamini Jaiswal (12 October 2008). "Mathura rape case" . The Sunday and Political Weekly. Retrieved 6 June 2013.
Indian. Retrieved 5 June 2013. 19. ^ Epp, p. 106
8. ^ a b Khullar, p. 132 20. ^ Singh, Shreya; Pandey, Apoorv. "The Identity Dilemma" . India Law
9. ^ "Remember Mathura?" . Hindustan Times. 26 December 2012. Archived Journal. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
from the original on 17 March 2013. Retrieved 5 June 2013.

Bibliography [ edit ]

Mala Khullar; Ihwa Yŏja Taehakkyo (2005). Writing the Women's Movement: A Reader . Zubaan. ISBN 8186706992.
Sarah Gamble, ed. (2001). The Routledge Companion to Feminism and Postfeminism . Routledge. ISBN 0415243106.
Charles R. Epp (1998). The Rights Revolution: Lawyers, Activists, and Supreme Courts in Comparative Perspective . University of Chicago Press.
p. 105 . ISBN 0226211622.
Kamlesh Jain (2008). In Case of Rape . Rajkamal Prakashan. ISBN 978-8183611947.

Further reading [ edit ]

An Open Letter to the Chief Justice of India, Supreme Court Cases (Journal), 1:17, 1979.
Tuka Ram And Others vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 September 1979, Supreme Court of India ( AIR 1979 SC 185; (1979) 2SCC 143; 1978 CrLJ
1864; 1979 SCC 143)

External links [ edit ]

Women in India: How Free? How Equal? (PDF Book)

· · Rape in India [show]

· · Social issues in India [show]

· · Sexual abuse [show]

Categories: Gang rape in India Child sexual abuse in India Crime in Maharashtra Police misconduct in India
History of Maharashtra (1947–present) Maharashtra Police Legal history of India Indian case law 1972 crimes in India Social history of India
Violence against women in India Chandrapur district Incidents of violence against girls

This page was last edited on 13 June 2023, at 15:32 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-
profit organization.

Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Contact Wikipedia Code of Conduct Developers Statistics Cookie statement Mobile view