TUKA RAM AND ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

TUKA RAM AND ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

The prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of rape under Section 375 IPC, in particular it did not establish that consent was obtained by putting the victim in fear of death or hurt (clause Thirdly); the circumstantial evidence could be reasonably construed otherwise; accordingly the sexual intercourse alleged did not amount to rape as to Ganpat and the allegations against Tukaram were not proved, so the convictions and sentences imposed by the High Court were unjustified and were set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Tukaram; Appellant: Ganpat; Respondent: State of Maharashtra
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 September 1978
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave to the Supreme Court (criminal Appeal No. 64 of 1977); Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the High Court reversed; convictions and sentences set aside; appellants acquitted.
Legal Topics
Rape, Consent (section 375 Ipc), Onus of Proof, Circumstantial Evidence, Sexual Offences
Criminal Law Evidence Rape Consent (section 375 Ipc) Onus of Proof Circumstantial Evidence Sexual Offences

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tukaram

Appellant

Ganpat

Appellant

State of Maharashtra

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave to the Supreme Court (criminal Appeal No. 64 of 1977); Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sexual intercourse alleged amounted to rape under Section 375 IPC
  2. 2 Whether consent was vitiated because it was obtained by putting the victim in fear of death or hurt (clause Thirdly of Section 375)
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution discharged the onus of proving all ingredients of the offence

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of rape under Section 375 IPC, in particular it did not establish that consent was obtained by putting the victim in fear of death or hurt (clause Thirdly); the circumstantial evidence could be reasonably construed otherwise; accordingly the sexual intercourse alleged did not amount to rape as to Ganpat and the allegations against Tukaram were not proved, so the convictions and sentences imposed by the High Court were unjustified and were set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the High Court reversed; convictions and sentences set aside; appellants acquitted.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgment and order of the High Court dated 12th/13th December, 1976 reversed