Mathura rape case

Last updated

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 policemen on the compound of Desaiganj Police Station in Gadchiroli district of Maharashtra. After the Supreme Court acquitted the accused, there was 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]

Contents

The incident

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 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] 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 complaint claiming that his sister, a minor, was being kidnapped by Ashok and his family members. After receiving the complaint, the police authority brought Ashok and his family members to the police station. Following general investigation, Mathura, her brother, Ashok, and his family members were 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 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

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

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]

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

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

Related Research Articles

Sexual assault is an act of sexual abuse in which one intentionally sexually touches another person without that person's consent, or coerces or physically forces a person to engage in a sexual act against their will. It is a form of sexual violence that includes child sexual abuse, groping, rape, drug facilitated sexual assault, and the torture of the person in a sexual manner.

A rape shield law is a law that limits the ability to introduce evidence about the past sexual activity of a complainant in a sexual assault trial, or that limits cross-examination of complainants about their past sexual behaviour in sexual assault cases. The term also refers to a law that prohibits the publication of the identity of a complainant in a sexual assault case.

The legal age of consent for sexual activity varies by jurisdiction across Asia. The specific activity engaged in or the gender of participants can also be relevant factors. Below is a discussion of the various laws dealing with this subject. The highlighted age refers to an age at or above which an individual can engage in unfettered sexual relations with another who is also at or above that age. Other variables, such as homosexual relations or close in age exceptions, may exist, and are noted when relevant.

The ages of consent for sexual activity vary from age 15 to 18 across Australia, New Zealand and other parts of Oceania. The specific activity and the gender of its participants is also addressed by the law. The minimum age is the age at or above which an individual can engage in unfettered sexual relations with another person of minimum age. Close in age exceptions may exist and are noted where applicable. In Vanuatu the homosexual age of consent is set higher at 18, while the heterosexual age of consent is 15. Same sex sexual activity is illegal at any age for males in Papua New Guinea, Kiribati, Samoa, Niue, Tonga and Tuvalu; it is outlawed for both men and women in the Solomon Islands. In all other places the age of consent is independent of sexual orientation or gender.

Rape is a type of sexual assault initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, under threat or manipulation, by impersonation, or with a person who is incapable of giving valid consent.

Rape in the Philippines is considered a criminal offense. In Philippine jurisprudence, it is a heinous crime punishable by reclusión perpetua when committed against women. Rape of males is also legally recognized as rape by sexual assault, which is penalized by imprisonment of six to twelve years.

Implied consent is consent which is not expressly granted by a person, but rather implicitly granted by a person's actions and the facts and circumstances of a particular situation. For example, if a person is unconscious as a result of injuries sustained during a traffic collision, medical treatment may be provided to that person, despite the unconscious person being unable to expressly grant consent for that treatment.

In common law jurisdictions, statutory rape is nonforcible sexual activity in which one of the individuals is below the age of consent. Although it usually refers to adults engaging in sexual contact with minors under the age of consent, it is a generic term, and very few jurisdictions use the actual term statutory rape in the language of statutes. In statutory rape, overt force or threat is usually not present. Statutory rape laws presume coercion because a minor or mentally disabled adult is legally incapable of giving consent to the act.

Rape is a statutory offence in England and Wales. The offence is created by section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Domestic violence in India</span>

Domestic violence in India includes any form of violence suffered by a person from a biological relative but typically is the violence suffered by a woman by male members of her family or relatives. Although men also suffer domestic violence, the law under IPC 498A specifically protects only women. Specifically only a woman can file a case of domestic violence. According to a National Family and Health Survey in 2005, total lifetime prevalence of domestic violence was 33.5% and 8.5% for sexual violence among women aged 15–49. A 2014 study in The Lancet reports that although the reported sexual violence rate in India is among the lowest in the world, the large population of India means that the violence affects 27.5 million women over their lifetimes. However, an opinion survey among experts carried out by the Thomson Reuters Foundation ranked India as the most dangerous country in the world for women.

Punishment for rape in Pakistan under the Pakistani laws is either death penalty or imprisonment of between ten and twenty-five years. For cases related to gang rape, the punishment is either death penalty or life imprisonment. DNA test and other scientific evidence are used in prosecuting rape cases in Pakistan.

Rape is the fourth most common crime against women in India. According to the 2021 annual report of the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), 31,677 rape cases were registered across the country, or an average of 86 cases daily, a rise from 2020 with 28,046 cases, while in 2019, 32,033 cases were registered. Of the total 31,677 rape cases, 28,147 of the rapes were committed by persons known to the victim. The share of victims who were minors or below 18 – the legal age of consent – stood at 10%.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013</span> Indian legislation

The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 is an Indian legislation passed by the Lok Sabha on 19 March 2013, and by the Rajya Sabha on 21 March 2013, which provides for amendment of Indian Penal Code, Indian Evidence Act, and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on laws related to sexual offences. The Bill received Presidential assent on 2 April 2013 and was deemed to be effective from 3 February 2013. It was originally an Ordinance promulgated by the President of India, Pranab Mukherjee, on 3 February 2013, in light of the protests in the 2012 Delhi gang rape case.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lotika Sarkar</span> Indian feminist, educator and lawyer

Lotika Sarkar was a noted Indian feminist, social worker, educator and lawyer, who was a pioneer in the field of women's studies and women's rights in India. She was a founding member of Centre for Women's Development Studies (CWDS), Delhi, established in 1980, and also Indian Association for Women Studies, established in 1982. Starting in 1951, she taught law at Faculty of Law, University of Delhi till 1983, and also remained the head of the law faculty; thereafter she taught at Indian Law Institute. She was the first Indian woman to graduate from Cambridge University, and later in 1951 she also became the first woman to receive a PhD degree in law from the university.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Shakti Mills gang rape</span> August 2013 gang rape in Mumbai, India

The 2013 Mumbai gang rape, also known as the Shakti Mills gang rape, refers to the incident in which a 22-year-old photojournalist, who was interning with an English-language magazine in Mumbai, was gang-raped by five people including a juvenile. The incident occurred on 22 August 2013, when she had gone to the deserted Shakti Mills compound, near Mahalaxmi in South Mumbai, with a male colleague on an assignment. The accused had tied up the victim's colleague with belts and raped her. The accused took photos of the victim during the sexual assault, and threatened to release them to social networks if she reported the rape. Later, an eighteen-year-old call centre employee reported that she too had been gang-raped, on 31 July 2013 inside the mills complex.

Adultery was a criminal offence under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code until it was quashed by the Supreme Court of India on 27 September 2018 as unconstitutional. The law dated from 1860. Under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which was the section dealing with adultery, a man who had consensual sexual intercourse with the wife of another man without that husband's consent or connivance could have been punished for this offence with up to five years imprisonment, a fine or both. As such, the concept of adultery targeted the act of sexual intercourse occurring between a married woman and a man other than her husband, in which case the man would be guilty whereas the wife was exempt from punishment. When a married man had sexual intercourse with an unmarried woman, no party was punishable; while if a married man had sexual intercourse with a married woman other than his wife, the married man's crime was against the husband of that married woman, not against the man's own wife towards whom he had been unfaithful. Adultery was only prosecutable upon the complaint of the aggrieved husband.

The Forum against Oppression of Women is a feminist organisation based in Mumbai, India. It originated as the Forum against Rape in 1980, organising protests in the city to the judgement in the Mathura rape case.

Sexual consent plays an important role in laws regarding rape, sexual assault and other forms of sexual violence. In a court of law, whether or not the alleged victim had freely given consent, and whether or not they were deemed to be capable of giving consent, can determine whether the alleged perpetrator is guilty of rape, sexual assault or some other form of sexual misconduct.

Dr. Vasudha Vasanti Dhagamwar (1940–2014) was a lawyer, scholar, researcher, writer and an activist. She was the Founder Director of Multiple Action Research Group (MARG), and was one of the four signatories of the Mathura Open Letter to the Supreme Court of India in 1979 in regard to the Mathura rape case, which helped spark a national movement against sexual violence in India.

The Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code was inserted into the Indian Penal Code 1860 by the Criminal Law amendment Act 1983 by the Parliament of India to prevent social victimization or ostracism of the victim of a sexual offence. The law provides for up to two years imprisonment with or without fine for those who reveal the identity of victims of sexual abuse in public. The law has been amended subsequently to add more sections of the Indian Penal Code under its purview.

References

  1. ↑ "Older friends". Mid-day. 13 January 2013. Retrieved 8 June 2013.
  2. ↑ B. Suguna (1 January 2009). Women S Movements. Discovery Publishing House. pp. 66–. ISBN   978-81-8356-425-0 . Retrieved 9 June 2013.
  3. 1 2 3 Basu, Moni (8 November 2013). "The Girl Whose Rape Changed A Country". CNN. Retrieved 7 December 2013.
  4. ↑ Basu, Moni (8 November 2013). "The Girl Whose Rape Changed A Country". CNN. Archived from the original on 5 December 2013. Retrieved 7 December 2013.
  5. ↑ Maya Majumdar (1 January 2005). Encyclopaedia of Gender Equality Through Women Empowerment. Sarup & Sons. pp. 297–. ISBN   978-81-7625-548-6 . Retrieved 9 June 2013.[ permanent dead link ]
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Indira, Jaising (20 January 1999). "Slamming the doors of justice on women". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 9 July 2019. Retrieved 2 June 2012.
  7. 1 2 Kamini Jaiswal (12 October 2008). "Mathura rape case". The Sunday Indian. Archived from the original on 30 May 2013. Retrieved 5 June 2013.
  8. 1 2 Khullar, p. 132
  9. ↑ "Remember Mathura?". Hindustan Times. 26 December 2012. Archived from the original on 17 March 2013. Retrieved 5 June 2013.
  10. ↑ Michael T. Kaufman (20 April 1980). "Rape Case Reversal Infuriates Indian Women's Groups; Assaults on Women Reported 'I was Appailed' Class and Sexist Prejudice". The New York Times. Retrieved 6 June 2013.
  11. 1 2 3 Epp, p. 105
  12. ↑ "In memoriam: Lotika Sarkar 1923 – 2013". feministsindia.com. 25 February 2013. Retrieved 4 June 2013.
  13. 1 2 3 Gamble, p. 59
  14. ↑ Khullar, p. 133
  15. ↑ "Rape law, a double-edged sword in India". CNN-IBN. 18 June 2009. Archived from the original on 22 June 2009. Retrieved 6 June 2013.
  16. ↑ "Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act. 46 of 1983, 113 (A) and 114 (A)" (PDF). Law Commission of India. p. 265. Retrieved 13 June 2013.
  17. ↑ Jain, p. 12
  18. ↑ Laxmi Murthy (8 June 2013). "From Mathura to Bhanwari". Economic and Political Weekly. Retrieved 6 June 2013.
  19. ↑ Epp, p. 106
  20. ↑ Singh, Shreya; Pandey, Apoorv. "The Identity Dilemma". India Law Journal. Retrieved 24 January 2022.

Bibliography

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.