Unnatural séx by man with wife without her consent Isn't An Offence - HC
While acquitting a resident of Jagdalpur who was found guilty of rape and other counts, the chhattisgarh high court ruled that sexual contact, including unnatural acts, between a man and his adult wife, even without her agreement, cannot be considered an offense.
While acquitting the man who had been arrested in 2017 and found guilty by a trial court in the Bastar district of charges under IPC sections 376 (rape), 377 (unnatural sex), and 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) following the death of his wife, Justice narendra Kumar Vyas made the following observations.
The court reserved the case's judgment on november 19 of last year, and it was given on Monday, february 10.
While acquitting the man who had been arrested in 2017 and found guilty by a trial court in the Bastar district of charges under IPC sections 376 (rape), 377 (unnatural sex), and 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) following the death of his wife, Justice narendra Kumar Vyas made the following observations.
The court reserved the case's judgment on november 19 of last year, and it was given on Monday, february 10.
The single bench judge pointed out that any sexual contact or conduct between a husband and wife cannot be considered rape if the woman is not less than 15 years old since the wife's agreement to the unnatural act is no longer significant.
The prosecution claims that the guy, who lived in Jagdalpur, the district headquarters of Bastar, was detained on december 11, 2017, based on his wife's confession that was recorded before she passed away at a government hospital the same day.
The prosecution claims that the guy, who lived in Jagdalpur, the district headquarters of Bastar, was detained on december 11, 2017, based on his wife's confession that was recorded before she passed away at a government hospital the same day.
The woman reportedly told her family members that her spouse had engaged in unnatural intercourse with her without her will on december 11, 2017, and she complained of discomfort. The victim's dying declaration, which was recorded in front of the court, stated that she fell ill as a result of "forceful sexual intercourse" with her spouse.
The individual was found guilty under sections 377, 376, and 304 of the IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track court, or FTC) at Jagdalpur on february 11, 2019, and given a ten-year harsh jail term.
Later, the guy went to the bilaspur high court to contest the ruling of the lower court.
The individual was found guilty under sections 377, 376, and 304 of the IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track court, or FTC) at Jagdalpur on february 11, 2019, and given a ten-year harsh jail term.
Later, the guy went to the bilaspur high court to contest the ruling of the lower court.
The man's attorney argued throughout the proceedings that his client had been found guilty of several offenses solely based on the victim's account and that there was no legally acceptable evidence against the appellant on file.
He argued that the trial court had not taken into consideration the testimony of two witnesses who informed the Jagdalpur court that the woman had piles shortly after giving birth, which caused her to hemorrhage and have abdominal discomfort.
He called it "doubtful" that the trial court relied on the deathbed declaration.
He argued that the trial court had not taken into consideration the testimony of two witnesses who informed the Jagdalpur court that the woman had piles shortly after giving birth, which caused her to hemorrhage and have abdominal discomfort.
He called it "doubtful" that the trial court relied on the deathbed declaration.
The state government's attorney argued in favor of the trial court's contested ruling and asked that the appeal against the conviction and sentence be dismissed.
The high court in its ruling held that "from perusal of sections 375, 376 and 377 of 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" .
The high court in its ruling held that "from perusal of sections 375, 376 and 377 of 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" .