In a recent judgment that has implications for the interpretation of criminal law in marital contexts, the Kerala High Court quashed the charges under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against Sayyid Imbichi Koya Thangal, a prominent figure and President of Mujammau Ssaqafathi Ssunniya. The case, Sayyid Imbichi Koya Thangal @ Bayar Thangal v. State of Kerala and Another (CRL.MC No. 4759 of 2024), was filed by the petitioner against the State of Kerala and his wife, Shabna Beevi, who had accused him of committing offenses under Sections 377 and 498A IPC.
Legal Issues and Arguments
The key legal issues in this case were the applicability of Section 377 IPC, which pertains to unnatural offenses, and the charges under Section 498A IPC, related to cruelty. The defense argued that Section 377 IPC should not apply in this case because the allegations involved acts between a husband and wife. This argument was supported by previous judicial interpretations, such as in the case of Vinod Thankarajan v. State of Kerala, which clarified that post-2013 amendments to Section 375 IPC, certain acts between a husband and wife do not constitute unnatural offenses under Section 377 IPC.
A significant aspect of the defense’s argument was the reference to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the newly introduced criminal code. The defense noted that the BNS does not contain a provision equivalent to Section 377 IPC, indicating a legislative shift away from criminalizing certain acts within a marital context.
Court’s Decision
Justice A. Badharudeen, who presided over the case, made a pivotal decision to quash the charges under Section 377 IPC against the petitioner. The court observed that the exclusion of a provision equivalent to Section 377 IPC in the BNS was notable and likely intentional. This absence reflects a broader legislative trend to focus on specific types of criminal acts, particularly those involving minors, under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act and other relevant provisions within the BNS.
Regarding the applicability of Section 377 IPC in this case, the court relied on the precedent set by the Vinod Thankarajan case, which held that certain acts between a husband and wife, particularly those that occurred after the 2013 amendments to Section 375 IPC, are not covered under Section 377 IPC. As a result, the court found that the charges under Section 377 IPC were not legally sustainable and quashed them.
However, the court upheld the need for a trial under Section 498A IPC, which addresses allegations of cruelty. The complainant had accused the petitioner of harassing her, particularly after he allegedly married a minor during the subsistence of their marriage. The court determined that these allegations were specific enough to warrant a full trial.
Key Observations
Justice A. Badharudeen highlighted the significance of the legislative changes reflected in the BNS, stating, “The omission of a pari materia provision to Section 377 IPC in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita underscores a legislative intent to refine the application of criminal law within the context of marital relations, focusing on more targeted offenses under other legal frameworks.”
Also Read
The petitioner was represented by a team of advocates including Rameez Nooh, Ronit Zachariah, Badir Sadique, Fathima K., P. Rafthas, and K.N. Muhammed Thanveer. The respondents were represented by advocate K.M. Sathyanatha Menon, with M.P. Prasanth acting as the Public Prosecutor.
