The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that unnatural sex between a man and his adult wife does not merit punishment, thereby exempting ꦜsuch acts from🐟 criminal liability under Indian law.
The court emphasised that any sexual intercourse between a man and his wife is not considered rape, even in th🧔e absence of consent.
The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that unnatural sex between a man and his adult wife does not merit punishment, thereby exempting ꦜsuch acts from🐟 criminal liability under Indian law.
The court emphasised that any sexual intercourseജ between a man and his wife is not considered rape, even in the absence 🧸of consent.
The case centres around Gorak🌌hnth Sharma, who was initially convicted of rape, unnatural sex, and culpable homicide not amounting to murder after the death of his wife. The woman had been admitted to the hospital after allegedly suffering from severe pain due to a forced, unnatural sexual act by her husband, which led to her death. Medical experts concluded that the cause of death was peritonitis and rectal 🔯perforation, a consequence of the unnatural act.
In its ruling, the Chhattisgarh HC found that the husband could not be held liable for rape or an unꦡnatural offence under Sections 375 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
"From perusal of Section 375, 376 and 377 IPC it is quite vivid that in view of amended definition of Section 375 IPC, offence under Section 377 IPC between husband and wife has no place and, as such rape cannot be made out. It is pertinent to mention here that in the amendment in Section 375 IPC in the year 2013, Exception- 2 has been provided which speaks that sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife is not a rape and therefore if any unnatural sex as defined under section 377 is committed by the husband with his wife, then it can also not be treated to be an offence," Bar and Bench cited court’s judgement.
Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, in his judgment, referred to the amendment of Section 375 in 2013, specifically Exception 2, which excludes marital sex from being c𓄧lassified as rape as long as the wife is above the age of 15.
The ruling also clarified that, as a result of this exclusion, unnatural sex between a husband and wif♊e could not be treated as an offence under Section 377 IPC, which criminalizes unnatural sexual acts.
"If the age of wife is not below age of 15 years then any sexual intercourse or sexual act by the husband with her wife cannot be termed as rape under the circumstances, as such absence of consent of wife for unnatural act loses its importance, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the offence under Section 376 and 377 of the IPC against the appellant is not made out," the Court held.
The case stemmed from an appeal against the conviction of Gorakhnth Sharma, who had been sentenced to 10 years in prison by a lower court. The trial court had relied heavily on the dying declaration of the victim, in which she stated that her husband's sexual act led to her condition. However, the High Court expressed doubts about the credibility of the dyin𓆏g declaration, as it was not corroborated by any other evidence. Furthermore, the court found that there was insufficient evidence to support the charges of culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC.
The ruling acquitted Sharma of all charges, prompting a closer ex🔯amination of laws regarding marital consent and the criminalisation of marital rape. The judgment aligns with the legal stance that marital rape is not punishable in India, a subject that has been a point of contention in Indian legal discourse.
The central government has consistently argued against criminalising marital rape, asserting that marriage as an institution requires protection and that the law already proviꦑdes safeguards for the consent of married w๊omen. The government's stance has come under fire from various women's rights organisations, which contend that marital rape laws need urgent reform.
Recently, the Supreme Court was hearing petitions to criminalise marital rape but suspended the proceedings due to the impending retirement of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, NDTV reported.
A new bench wꦗill take up the matter, though the out🌺come remains uncertain.
The judgment also raises pertinent questions regarding the scope of spousal consent and the need for a more comprehensive and nuanced legal 🥂approach to protect individuals within marriage, especially in cases involving non-consensual sexual acts.