Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra (1979)

Quick Summary

Mathura alleged sexual assault by two constables inside a police station. The Sessions Court acquitted; the High Court convicted. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution had not proved the required ingredients of Section 375 IPC. It found no injuries and rejected the claim of fear overriding consent. The High Court’s conviction was set aside; both appellants were acquitted.

Issues

• Did the facts establish offences under Section 354 IPC (Tukaram) and Section 376 IPC (Ganpat)?

Rules (Easy English)

Burden under Section 375 IPC: Prosecution must prove every ingredient—penetration, absence of consent, or consent obtained by specific vitiating factors (fear of death/hurt, etc.).

Clause (Third) of Section 375: Consent caused by fear of death or hurt vitiates consent. Court must find fear-based consent as a fact to apply this clause.

Section 354 IPC: Assault or criminal force with intent to outrage a woman’s modesty—requires proof of the act and intent.

Facts (Timeline)

Arguments

Judgment

• Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted both appellants.
• Court held the prosecution did not establish the absence of consent or fear-based consent under the relevant clause of Section 375 IPC.
• Absence of injuries and circumstances suggested the intercourse was not proved as rape beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio (Core Principle)

For rape, the prosecution must prove each statutory ingredient—especially absence of consent or consent vitiated by a defined factor like fear of death or hurt. Courts cannot presume fear merely from the setting; there must be a clear finding tied to the clause of Section 375 IPC.

Why It Matters

• Shows how courts applied the consent test before later legislative reforms.
• Important for exam problems on Section 375/376 IPC ingredients and burden of proof.
• Contextual background to later debates and changes in sexual offence laws.

Key Takeaways

• No presumption of fear: Authority setting alone is not enough—facts must show fear or lack of consent.
• Medical evidence is relevant: Absence of injuries can weigh against the prosecution—though not conclusive by itself.
• Precise clause matching: Courts must link findings to a specific clause of Section 375 IPC.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “CONSENT = FACT, NOT GUESS”

1. Check the clause of s.375.
2. Find facts proving no consent or fear-based consent.
3. Then apply s.376 or acquit.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Whether offences under Sections 354 and 376 IPC were proved.

Rule: Section 375 IPC ingredients must be strictly proved; consent vitiation requires specific factual findings; Section 354 needs act plus intent to outrage modesty.

Application: No injuries; no clear finding of fear; contradictions around resistance; medical and surrounding facts did not prove rape beyond doubt.

Conclusion: High Court conviction set aside; appellants acquitted.

Glossary

Section 375 IPC

Defines rape and sets specific situations where consent is vitiated (e.g., fear of death or hurt).

Section 376 IPC

Punishment for rape.

Section 354 IPC

Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.

Burden of Proof

Duty of prosecution to prove ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

FAQs

Related Cases