The Logical Indian Crew

Sexual Intercourse By Husband Not Rape, Even By Force Or Against Wife's Wishes: Chhattisgarh HC

The judge stated an exception in Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (offence of rape), which notes that sexual intercourse does not amount to sexual assault as long as the woman is not a minor.

  • Whatsapp
  • Telegram
  • Linkedin
  • Print
  • koo
  • Whatsapp
  • Telegram
  • Linkedin
  • Print
  • koo
  • Whatsapp
  • Telegram
  • Linkedin
  • Print
  • koo

Acquitting a man accused of raping his wife, the Chhattisgarh High Court said that sexual intercourse or any sexual acts by a man with his wife does not constitute rape. No law in the Indian judiciary recognises marital rape as a crime if the wife is above 18 years of age.

The single-judge bench of Justice NK Chandravanshi was hearing a criminal revision plea moved by the husband, Dilip Pandey, on August 23, claiming that he was framed on charges based on wife Ambika Prasad Pandey's complaint.

The judge stated an exception in Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (offence of rape), which notes that sexual intercourse does not amount to sexual assault as long as the woman is not a minor.

"The complainant is legally wedded. Therefore, sexual intercourse or any act by the husband would not constitute an offence of rape, even if by force or against her wish," Bar and Bench quoted the Court's ruling.

The Court, however, upheld the charges under Section 498A (cruelty against women) and Section 377 (unnatural sex) against the husband and his family.

Wife's Complaint

Ambika Prasad had alleged that she was subjected to torture, abuse, harassment, and was a victim of dowry-related violence by the husband and in-laws right after a few days to the marriage in 2017.

Besides, her husband had unnatural physical sex with her and violated her with objects. Despite resuming multiple times, he would insert his fingers and radish in her vagina, she added.

The woman's parents and witnesses supported her allegations against Pandey, as the other parties stated similar facts in their police statement.

No Affirmity In Charges Alleged

The judge held that the Court did not find any infirmity in framing charges under Section 498-A/34 of the IPC against the applicants.

The Court also sustained the charges under Section 377 (unnatural offences) against Pandey.

"Where the dominant intention of the offender is to derive unnatural sexual satisfaction, repeatedly insert object in the sex organ of the victim and consequently derive sexual pleasure, such act qualifies as carnal intercourse, which is against the order of nature," the Court observed.

Also Read: Mysuru Horror: MBA Student Gang-Raped, Boyfriend Beaten Up; No Arrests So Far

Contributors Suggest Correction
Writer : Devyani Madaik
,
Editor : Palak Agrawal
,
Creatives : Devyani Madaik