In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that non-consensual unnatural sex by a husband on his wife does not constitute an offence under Sections 375 (rape) and 377 (unnatural offences) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court set aside the conviction of Gorakhnath Sharma, who was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment by a trial court for allegedly forcing unnatural sex upon his wife, leading to her death.
Background of the Case
The case revolved around an incident that took place on December 11, 2017, when the accused, Gorakhnath Sharma, allegedly forced unnatural sex on his wife, resulting in severe injuries. According to the prosecution, the victim had suffered rectal perforations and was admitted to Maharani Hospital, where her dying declaration was recorded. She succumbed to her injuries on the same day. The police registered a case under Sections 377, 376 (rape), and 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) IPC, leading to Sharma’s conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bastar, Jagdalpur, in Sessions Trial No. 32 of 2018.
Legal Issues Before the High Court
Whether Sections 376 and 377 IPC apply when the accused and victim are legally wedded spouses?
Whether the act of unnatural sex between husband and wife, even if non-consensual, amounts to an offence under IPC?
Whether the conviction under Section 304 IPC was justified in the absence of clear causation between the alleged act and the victim’s death?
Observations of the Court
The case was heard by Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, who examined the dying declaration, medical reports, and testimony of prosecution witnesses. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), where it was held that consensual unnatural sex between adults is not a crime. However, the High Court noted that this ruling does not directly apply to marital relationships, where the law provides an exception to the crime of rape.
On IPC Section 375 (Rape):
The court ruled that under the exception to Section 375 IPC, sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, unless she is under 15 years of age, is not considered rape. Since the prosecution alleged that the accused engaged in forcible intercourse with his wife, the court held that the exception applies, making the charge under Section 376 IPC unsustainable.
On IPC Section 377 (Unnatural Offences):
The court emphasized that Section 377 criminalizes carnal intercourse “against the order of nature,” but does not explicitly define unnatural offences within a marital relationship. The judgment noted that “if the definition of rape excludes marital sexual acts, then unnatural intercourse within marriage also cannot be held as an offence under Section 377 IPC.” The court ruled that there was legal inconsistency (“repugnancy”) between Sections 375 and 377 IPC in cases involving husband and wife, and thus, the accused could not be convicted under Section 377.
On IPC Section 304 (Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder):
The High Court found no direct medical evidence linking the accused’s actions to the victim’s death. The court also pointed out discrepancies in the dying declaration, as the magistrate who recorded it failed to mention that the victim explicitly blamed her husband. Given this, the court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused’s actions caused the victim’s death.
Judgment and Acquittal
In its final ruling, the High Court set aside the conviction, stating:
“When sexual intercourse by a husband with his wife is exempted from the definition of rape, non-consensual unnatural sex also cannot be considered a crime under Section 377 IPC.”
The court also observed that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused’s actions directly led to the victim’s death, making his conviction under Section 304 IPC unsustainable.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, acquitted Gorakhnath Sharma, and ordered his immediate release from prison.
