The Chhattisgarh High Court acquitted a 40-year-old man who was convicted by a trial court of rape, unnatural sexual Intercourse, and culpable homicide after his wife’s death. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas overturned the conviction, citing Exception 2 of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which states that sexual intercourse or sexual acts between a husband and wife are not considered rape if the wife is over 15 years of age. The court stated that the absence of the wife’s consent for unnatural sexual Intercourse is not legally significant in such cases.
The case originated in December 2017 when the man’s wife was hospitalized after he allegedly committed unnatural sexual intercourse against her will. She died later that day, and her dying declaration stated that “forceful sexual intercourse” by her husband led to her illness.
Doctors confirmed she died due to peritonitis and rectal perforation. The Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) at Jagdalpur convicted the man under sections 377, 376 and 304 of the IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.
The High Court, however, acquitted the man, stating that if the wife is over 15, any sexual act by the husband cannot be termed as rape, and therefore, the absence of consent is irrelevant. The court also suggested that Section 377 IPC (unnatural offenses) is repugnant to Exception 2 of Section 375 IPC in cases between a husband and wife. The High Court noted that rape under Section 375 includes penetration of the penis into the vagina, urethra, or anus, but such acts between a husband and wife are excluded by Exception 2, even without consent.
It is quite vivid that Section 377 (unnatural sex) is not well equipped, and offender is not defined therein but body parts are well defined, which are also included in Section 375 (carnal intercourse against the order of nature), the HC observed.
This ruling has sparked debate about marital rape and consent laws in India, where marital rape is not legally recognized as an offense.
This ruling is a deeply troubling setback for women’s rights in India. To suggest that a wife’s consent is irrelevant in matters of sexual intimacy within marriage, particularly in cases of unnatural sexual Intercourse, is a dangerous perpetuation of the idea that women are the property of their husbands. It undermines a woman’s bodily autonomy and effectively condones marital rape, a concept that India continues to struggle to recognize legally. This decision not only fails to protect women from sexual violence within marriage but also sends a disturbing message that their fundamental right to say “no” can be disregarded based solely on their marital status.
