thura custodial rape case.
It became a landmark in various other judgments. On March 26, 1972, a young Adivasi girl named Mathura was allegedly raped by policemen in the Desai Gunj Police Station in Maharashtra.
In the trial, the session court came to the conclusion that she had sexual intercourse while in custody at the police station but rape had not been proved and that she was accustom to intercourse.
While the sessions court acquitted both the policemen, the High Court reversed the order. When the case reached the Supreme Court, it repeals the High Court verdict saying that “the intercourse in question is not proved to amount to rape”. In its September 15, 1978 verdict, the top court said no marks of injury were found on the girl after the incident, and “their absence goes a long way to indicate that the alleged intercourse was a peaceful affair”.
The controversial verdict sparked widescale protests across the country seeking a change in existing rape laws.
This verdict shows the condition and mindset we had then.
This culminated in the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act of 1983. A new Section 114A in the Indian Evidence Act was inserted which presumed that there is the absence of consent in certain prosecutions of rape if the victim says so.
This applied to custodial rape cases.
In the IPC, Section 228A was added which makes it punishable to disclose the identity of the victim of certain offenses including rape.
Section 114A in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
114A. Presumption as to the absence of consent in certain prosecutions for rape. —In a prosecution for rape under clause
where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of the woman alleged to have been raped and she states in her evidence before the Court that she did not consent, the Court shall presume that she did not consent.
CONCLUSION
In my opinion, before this case, the administration of the criminal system existing in a country like India needed an effective mechanism. This case evolved as a landmark case as the guidelines issued by the bench aimed to protect the people in custody. It is an obligation of the State to protect the citizens; either they are accused of an offense or a normal innocent person.
The law can’t be prejudicial in its approach and can’t deny basic rights like the right to liberty, dignity to someone who is in police custody.
Comments