Facts of the Case

The appellant in the present case was the husband of the deceased victim. On the night of 11th December 2017, the appellant allegedly committed an act of unnatural sex with the victim against her will. It was reported that the appellant inserted his hand into the victim’s anus, causing her significant pain. The victim subsequently required medical treatment and was admitted to the hospital. A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to unnatural offences.

The victim’s dying declaration was recorded by an Executive Magistrate on the same day, in which she stated that she fell ill due to the forceful sexual intercourse conducted by her husband. Tragically, the victim died later that evening.

The post-mortem examination conducted by a medical professional revealed two perforations on the victim’s rectum, and the cause of death was determined to be peritonitis resulting from the rectal perforation. The trial court convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 377 (unnatural offences), 376 (rape), and 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the IPC, sentencing him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant filed an appeal in the Chhattisgarh High Court.

Contentions of the Appellant

The appellant contended that the conviction was unjust and not based on a proper understanding of the law. Specifically, the appellant argued that under Section 375 of the IPC, which defines rape, no offence could be made out between a husband and wife in this instance, as the exception under Section 375 provides immunity for sexual acts between spouses, as long as the wife is above the age of 15. Additionally, the appellant asserted that the evidence supporting the charge of unnatural sex was insufficient, and that the dying declaration of the victim could not serve as the sole basis for conviction due to doubts over its authenticity. He further argued that the conviction under Section 304 of the IPC was erroneous, as there was no evidence to establish that the act led to culpable homicide.

Contentions of the Respondent (State)

The respondent, represented by the state, maintained that the appellant’s actions were criminal in nature and should be punished. The dying declaration of the victim was the primary evidence that supported the claim of non-consensual, unnatural sexual acts. The prosecution contended that the appellant’s actions violated the victim’s dignity and bodily integrity, and that the death was directly linked to the assault. As such, the respondent argued that the charges under Sections 377 and 376 were valid, and the conviction under Section 304 IPC should stand as a result of the harm caused to the victim.

Court’s Observations

Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas of the Chhattisgarh High Court framed two central questions for consideration: (1) Whether offences under Sections 376 and 377 of the IPC are applicable when the accused and the victim are husband and wife, and (2) Whether the conviction under Section 304 of the IPC was justifiable.

Regarding the first question, the court referred to the provisions of Sections 375, 376, and 377 of the IPC. The court highlighted that following the amendment of Section 375, the exception for a husband having sexual intercourse with his wife (if she is above 15 years of age) precluded the possibility of rape being constituted in this context. The judge stressed that sexual acts between a husband and wife, where the wife is not under the age of 15, could not be classified as rape, including unnatural acts. The court explicitly stated that “if the age of the 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.”

Justice Vyas further observed that the inclusion of sexual acts between spouses under Section 375, following the legislative amendments, left no room for Section 377 to be applicable to marital relations. The court referenced the concept of “repugnancy” between Sections 375 and 377, concluding that it would be contradictory to apply Section 377 in the case of a marital relationship, given the protective provision under Section 375.

The court also acknowledged that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017), which increased the minimum age for consensual marriage to 18 years, had not been followed by the lower courts in this instance. This decision by the Apex Court rendered the law inconsistent with respect to the criminalization of non-consensual sexual acts between husbands and wives aged between 15 and 18.

In the present case, the Chhattisgarh High Court thus ruled that the actions of the appellant did not constitute an offence under Sections 376 or 377 IPC. It was concluded that in the context of the wife’s age being above 15, the absence of consent for an unnatural act was not enough to invoke the charges of rape or unnatural offences.

As for the conviction under Section 304 of the IPC, the court found it to be unjustified. The trial court had not provided adequate reasoning as to how Section 304, relating to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, applied to the facts of this case. The court observed that the trial court’s verdict was based on “perversity and patent illegality,” as it had failed to link the victim’s death to any criminal actions in a legally sound manner.

Court’s Decision

In light of these observations, the Chhattisgarh High Court acquitted the appellant of all charges, including those under Sections 376 (rape), 377 (unnatural offences), and 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court’s reasoning was primarily based on its interpretation of Section 375 of the IPC, which defines rape.

This judgment raised significant questions regarding the exception to marital rape. By upholding the exemption provided by Exception 2 to Section 375, the court effectively continued the immunity for husbands in cases of non-consensual sex with their wives.

The decision has reignited debates around the broader issue of marital rape in India. The exemption in our law, which treats a husband as not liable for marital rape, has been widely criticized. The judgment stands in contrast to ongoing legal discussions about removing this exemption entirely, with petitions pending before the Supreme Court for its reconsideration. It is argued that such exemptions violate the rights of women, particularly their right to bodily autonomy. The judgment has drawn attention to the need for further legal reform to protect women from sexual violence within marriage and ensure equality in the application of rape laws.

Credits: Deeksha Rai