‘Legally immaterial’: Madhya Pradesh High Court rules husband can’t be booked for ‘unnatural’ sex with wife

“In view of the expanded definition of rape, which includes acts such as anal and oral penetration, and the statutory exception in favour of marital relations, the offence under Section 377 IPC cannot be invoked for such acts between husband and wife during subsistence of marriage,” the court said on March 25.

Acts which were previously categorized as ‘unnatural offences’ have now been expressly incorporated within the ambit of the definition of rape, said the Madhya Pradesh High Court. (Image enhanced using AI)

Overlap between sections 375 and 377 IPC

• The court undertook a detailed examination of the evolution of rape law, particularly after the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013.
• It noted that the amended definition of rape under Section 375 IPC now explicitly includes various forms of penetration, including oral and anal acts.
• The court observed, “Acts which were previously categorized as ‘unnatural offences’ have now been expressly incorporated within the ambit of the definition of rape.”
• The judge emphasised that this expansion has reduced the independent scope of Section 377 in cases involving heterosexual acts, especially within marriage.

Marital exception becomes key

• A crucial factor in the court’s reasoning was Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC, which states that sexual acts by a husband with his wife (not being a minor) do not constitute rape.
• This effectively means that even non-consensual sexual acts within marriage cannot be prosecuted as rape due to the marital exception, and therefore cannot be reclassified under Section 377 either.

• Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (1860) historically criminalized “unnatural offences,” including consensual homosexual acts, as “carnal intercourse against the order of nature”.
• “In light of Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC, sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a husband with his wife (not being a minor) do not constitute rape, thereby rendering the aspect of consent within marriage legally immaterial for the purpose of prosecuting such acts as rape,” the court said.

Section 377 charge quashed against husband

• The court concluded that the allegations against the husband, even if taken at face value, pertained to acts within a marital relationship.
• Accordingly, it ruled, “The allegations do not prima facie disclose the commission of an offence under Section 377 IPC.”
• The court therefore quashed the charge under Section 377 IPC against the husband.

Relief for sister-in-law, trial to continue for others

• The high court also granted relief to the sister-in-law, noting that only “general and omnibus allegations” had been made against her without any specific role.
• “Her implication appears to be vague and prima facie an abuse of the process of law,” the court said while quashing proceedings against her.

• However, the court refused to interfere with the remaining charges against the husband and other family members, including those related to cruelty, assault, and dowry harassment.
• It clarified that issues such as inconsistencies in statements, lack of medical evidence, and allegations of false implication are matters for trial and cannot be adjudicated at the stage of quashing.

Background

• The case arose from a matrimonial dispute in Bhind district, where a woman accused her husband and his family members of cruelty, dowry harassment, physical assault, and sexual abuse, including allegations of “unnatural acts.”
• An FIR was registered in 2023 invoking multiple provisions, including Sections 377 (unnatural offences), 498-A (cruelty), 354 (assault on woman), and provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
• According to the prosecution, the complainant alleged that despite substantial dowry being given at the time of marriage, the husband and his family continued to demand additional money and a motorcycle.

• She further accused her husband of subjecting her to forced sexual acts causing pain and distress, alongside threats and physical violence.
• The accused, in turn, approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the FIR and chargesheet, arguing that the allegations were exaggerated, inconsistent, and motivated by matrimonial discord.

What court had to decide

• At the heart of the case was a narrow but crucial legal question-
• Can a husband be prosecuted under Section 377 IPC for engaging in oral or anal sexual acts with his wife during a subsisting marriage?
• The petitioners argued that such acts, even if assumed, fall within the ambit of marital relations and cannot be criminalised under Section 377.
• The state and complainant, however, contended that the allegations disclosed serious offences and should proceed to trial.

Conclusion

• While the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s ruling narrows the applicability of Section 377 in marital contexts, it also highlights the broader legal gap surrounding non-consensual sexual acts within marriage, an issue that remains unsettled and widely debated.
• The trial in the present case will now proceed on the remaining charges, even as the court’s interpretation adds to the growing body of jurisprudence on the intersection of marriage and criminal law.