Rape is defined as unconsented sexual activity, which is usually sexual relations, performed against the victim's will by force or threat of force, or involving a person who is incapable of providing informed consent because they are a minor, have a mental illness, are cognitively impaired, are intoxicated, are unconscious, or are lying. Sexual assault has replaced rape as a separate felony in several countries. Rape is today recognized as a pathological exercise of power over a victim, despite the reality that it was formerly thought to be the result of uncontrollable sexual desire.

Numerous arguments and modifications to India's rape laws may be found in the case of Tukaram and Others v. State of Maharashtra (1978), known as the Mathura Rape Case. Mathura was a young tribal girl who was raped, but the case also showed how the system failed her and how prejudice in society made it even more difficult for her to receive justice. This instance demonstrates the need for improved victim care and a shift in how we address sexual abuse.

Background and facts of the case:

• Incident: The case involves the 1972 custodial rape of Mathura, a young girl, in the Chandrapur district of Maharashtra.
• Accused: Two police officers were the defendants.
• Legal Context: The Indian Penal Code of 1860 at the time handled rape laws in India.

Adivasi girl Mathura's parents passed away when she was young, therefore she lived with her brother Gama. She was in the 14–16-year-old age range. Due to their low income, her brother had to work as a laborer and she was employed as a maid at Nunshi's home, where she eventually met Ashok, Nunshi's nephew. After growing close, they decided to get married, however, Gama disapproved of their union. With that, Ashok and Mathura eloped.

Due to this, Gama went to the local police station in Desai Gunj and filed a complaint on March 26, 1972, claiming that Ashok and his family had abducted Mathura, a juvenile. Head Constable Baburao noted the allegation. At 9:00 p.m., Mathura, Gama, Ashok, and his relatives were summoned for an inquiry. Baburao instructed them to leave when their statements were recorded, which was by 10:00 p.m., and he left for his home.
While they were all leaving, Mathura was asked by Constable Ganpat to stay behind, and her relatives were told to wait outside. He looked at her intimate areas before raping her in the area behind the police station.
Head Constable Tukaram also touched her intimate areas, but his extreme drunkenness prevented him from raping her.

Mathura reported the incident to everyone when she emerged. After that, she had a medical examination by Dr. Kamal Shastrakar. Although there are no physical injuries listed in the medical report, semen was discovered on her clothing. Dr. Kamal Mathura advised Mathura to submit a formal complaint against the two police constables.

Issues Raised:

• Is section 376 of the Indian Penal Code applicable to the appellants, Constable Ganpat, and Head Constable Tukaram, and what are their potential penalties?
• Are Constable Ganpat and Head Constable Tukaram accountable for violating the Indian Penal Code section 354?
• Could a little girl consent to such an act?
• Was the girl's passive submission motivated by fear, or did she consent?

Provisions involved in the case:

1. Section 374 IPC: This section says that anyone who assaults or uses unlawful force against a woman with the intent to offend her or knowing that doing so will likely cause her to lose her modesty faces imprisonment of any kind for a minimum of one year and a maximum of five years, as well as a fine.
2. Section 375 IPC: The Indian Penal Code, section 375, defines rape as "sexual intercourse with a woman against her will, without her consent, by coercion, misrepresentation or fraud or at a time when she has been intoxicated or duped or is of unsound mental health and in any case if she is under 18 years of age."

Judgement of the Sessions Court
Since consensual sex rather than rape occurred, the session judge decided that the defendants were not guilty. Additionally, it decided that Mathura was accustomed to having sex, suggesting that she may have previously engaged in consenting sexual interactions. He implied that Mathura might have wanted to have sex with Ganpat and granted her approval, which made this look problematic. The judge went so far as to speculate that the semen discovered on her clothing may have been from a previous partner with whom she had sex. He offered a different justification, citing "nightly discharges," for the semen discovered on Ganpat's clothing. The court's disparate requirements for men and women are puzzling.

Judgement of Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench)

The acquittal order was overturned by the High Court.
The High Court determined that the forced sexual contact constituted rape. Mathura did not know any of the accused, thus it was quite unlikely that she would approach them or provide an invitation to fulfil her sexual desire. Such approaches or overtures might come from a girl who was the subject of a complaint filed by her brother. But the proposal had to originate with the accused, and if it had, she would not have been able to oppose it. Regarding appellant Tuka Ram, the Court held that he had not attempted to rape the girl and had instead relied on her testimony when he was accused of caressing her intimate areas following Ganpat appellant's conduct of sexual intercourse.

Judgement of Supreme Court
The Bombay High Court's decision was overturned, and the accused were found not guilty by the Supreme Court of India in September 1979. The Supreme Court classified the behaviour as consensual sexual contact instead of rape, ruling that the absence of physical harm demonstrated that the accused did not fight the behaviour. The Court noted that Mathura did not oppose the crime but willingly gave herself up to the accused.

By Section 375(3) of the Indian Penal Code, the court determined that the woman's intentional act of leaving her family and going to the police station of her choosing did not constitute consent because of the possible danger of injury. She did not call out for assistance or object, so by Section 375(2) of the IPC, the action was carried out with her consent. causing Mathura to grow habituated to having intercourse. The defendant was found not guilty by the Supreme Court, overturning the Bombay High Court's ruling.

Consequences of the judgement given by Supreme Court
After the judgement of Supreme Court, there were protests and rallies around the country to resist the judgement given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Many professors including Upendra Baxi, Raghunath Kelkar and many more wrote open letters and articles to Supreme Court of India and questioned their judgement of Tukaram Vs State Of Maharashtra. They wrote that how can a girl of merely 15-16 years old ask or shout for help against 2 policemen, who is trapped inside a police station. Does the court expect a tribal maid girl to make enough resistance that there are sufficient bodily injuries on her to prove that she was harassed and violated?

Even after large scale protests and opposition to the judgement by scholars and professors there was no change in their judgement and justice to Mathura was denied by the Apex Court.

Self-Analysis
This judgement by the Supreme Court of India sets an example that even after there are laws enshrined in the Constitution of India for Women and vulnerable groups, they are not implemented properly, and they still face discrimination be it physically or mentally. The above-mentioned case tells us the same where Mathura, a tribal girl was harassed and violated by 2 policemen by their authority and at the end she was deprived of justice. This shows the pathetic conditions of women in our country where they are suppressed in every field they choose to work.

Despite various feminist movements in our country and around the world in the late 20th century, we can say that there were no laws made to protect the privacy of women and the vulnerable section of the society. Even the provisions that were made were not properly implemented to safeguard the privacy of women. Also, the police administration itself damaged the framework which was made for the protection of women and other citizens.

Through this judgement of Apex Court, the natural rights of women were impaired, and Professors and Scholars emphasized on the re-examination of the case and also focused on protecting human rights. Issues regarding gender discrimination were also raised within the judicial system and according to various research an astounding of 40 million rape cases are still pending in the lower courts as of September 2021.

Relevant Case Laws:

• Rupan Deol Bajaj vs KPS Gill
• Mohd. Habib vs State
• Satyama Dubey vs Union of India

Conclusion
In India, The Mathura Rape Case remains very significant and controversial chapter in the legal history of India. This case focused and made people think about what consent is, and how our legal system handles a rape survivor. This case reminds us that sexual assault and violation of women are serious issues that are to be looked upon by everyone. Through this case we got to know that we still need better laws and a positive attitude and approach towards rape victims and survivors.

Reforms were made in the criminal system after this case in 1983. Even though after many reforms in the criminal system of India, the cases of rapes are still increasing day by day. Besides the physical injury caused to the victim they also suffer mental traumas, depression, PTSD and many more psychological diseases. A step towards elimination of this crime would definitely improve the security and safeguard the rights of the women.