India anger as judge frees man accused of raping wife who then died
An Indian court's ruling that a man's forced "unnatural sex" with his wife is not an offence has led to huge outrage and sparked renewed calls for better protections for married women.
The controversial order has also brought back into the spotlight the issue of marital rape in a country which has stubbornly refused to criminalise it.
Earlier this week, a high court judge in the central Indian state of Chhattisgarh set free a 40-year-old man who was convicted by a trial court in 2019 of rape and unnatural sex with his wife, who died within hours of the alleged assault.
The lower court had also found the man guilty of "culpable homicide not amounting to murder". He was sentenced to "rigorous imprisonment for 10 years" on each count, with all the sentences to run concurrently.
But on Monday, the High Court's Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas acquitted the man of all charges, saying that since India did not recognise marital rape, the husband could not be considered guilty of non-consensual sex or any non-consensual unnatural sexual act.
The judgement has been met with anger, as activists, lawyers and campaigners renew their calls to criminalise marital rape in India.
"To watch this man walk away is unacceptable. This judgement may be correct legally, but it is ethically and morally abhorrent," said lawyer and gender rights activist Sukriti Chauhan.
"An order that absolves a man of such a crime, to say it's not a crime, is the darkest hour in our legal system," she told the BBC.
"It has shaken us to the core. This needs to change and change quickly."
Priyanka Shukla, a lawyer in Chhattisgarh, said a judgement like this "sends out the message that because you're the husband, you have rights. And you can do anything, you can even get away with murder".
She added that this is not the first time a court has given such a judgement, and there is always anger.
"This time, the outrage is more because it is so gruesome and the woman died."
The court documents make for grim reading.
According to the prosecution, the incident took place on the night of 11 December 2017, when the husband, who worked as a driver, "committed unnatural sex with the victim against her will… causing her a lot of pain".
After he left for work, she sought help from his sister and another relative, who took her to hospital where she died a few hours later.
In her statement to the police and her dying declaration to a magistrate, the woman said she became ill "due to forceful sexual intercourse by her husband".
A dying declaration carries weight in court and legal experts say it is generally enough for conviction, unless contradicted by other evidence.
While convicting the man in 2019, the trial court had relied heavily on her dying declaration and the post-mortem report, which stated "the cause of death was peritonitis and rectal perforation" - simply put, severe injuries to her abdomen and rectum.
Justice Vyas, however, saw matters differently – he questioned the "sanctity" of the dying statement, noted that some of the witnesses had retracted their statements and, most importantly, said that marital rape was not an offence in India.
The lower court's conviction was "a rarest of rare case", Ms Shukla said, "probably because the woman died".
"But what is shocking about the high court order is that there's not even one sympathetic comment from the judge."
Considering the nature of the assault, the high court's order has come as a shock for many, who believe the judge should not have dismissed the case so lightly.
India is among more than 30 countries - along with Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia - where marital rape is not a criminal offence.
A number of petitions have been filed in recent years seeking to strike down Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which has been in existence since 1860.
The British colonial-era law mentions several "exemptions" - or situations in which sex is not rape - and one of them is "by a man with his own wife" if she is not under 15 years.
Britain outlawed marital rape in 1991 but India, which recently rewrote its criminal code, retained the regressive law in its new statute book.
India government says criminalising marital rape 'excessively harsh'
In India, growing clamour to criminalise rape within marriage
The idea is rooted in the belief that consent for sex is "implied" in marriage and that a wife cannot retract it later. Campaigners say such an argument is untenable in this day and age, and that forced sex is rape, regardless of who does it.
But in a country where marriage and family are considered sacrosanct, the issue has polarised opinions and there's strong resistance to the idea of criminalising marital rape.
The Indian government, religious leaders and men's rights activists have strongly opposed the move.
In October last year, the government told the Supreme Court that criminalisation of marital rape would be "excessively harsh". The federal home ministry said it "may lead to serious disturbances in the institution of marriage".
Authorities also insist that there are enough laws to protect married women against sexual violence. But campaigners say India cannot hide behind archaic laws to deny women bodily agency.
"A lot of people say the constitution cannot enter your bedroom," Ms Chauhan said.
"But doesn't it grant women - like all citizens - fundamental rights to safety and security? What kind of redundant country do we live in that we remain quiet when a woman has to face this level of violence?" she asks.
Violence within marriage is rampant in India.
According to a recent government survey, 32% of married women face physical, sexual or emotional violence by their husbands and 82% have experienced sexual violence by their husbands.
And even that doesn't give the true scale of the problem, Ms Shukla said, because a majority of women do not report violence, especially sexual violence, out of shame.
"In my experience, women are not trusted when they complain, everyone says it must be fake. The only time such cases are taken seriously is when a woman dies or the assault is particularly gruesome," the lawyer said.
Ms Chauhan believes nothing will change until the law changes.
"We need to criminalise marital rape. The wife not getting justice after such a gruesome incident deserves a nationwide campaign, which is not born of anger but is serious [and] well thought out."
She added that the government and men's activists try to project it as a "man versus woman debate".
"But the demand for criminalising marital rape is not against men, but for the safety and wellbeing of women. Is it not important to ensure women's safety?"

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
6 hours ago
- New York Post
NFL's Washington Redskins should restore name, logo says family of Indian chief it was based on
In July 2020, the NFL's Washington Redskins announced it would drop its name and Native American logo, which some deemed offensive. The team adopted the name Commanders in 2022. But the family of the man the logo was based upon — Blackfeet tribal chief John Two Guns White Calf — says no one bothered to ask their opinion. Below, his nephew, Thomas White Calf, tells The Post President Trump's recent support for the team's Blackfeet heritage gives the family hope for the first time that its voice will be heard. Blackfeet Chief Two Guns White Calf was my great uncle and a great American icon. Americans know his face: he was the face of the Washington Redskins for 48 years, until he was cancelled in 2020. Americans once knew his story. Advertisement White Calf defended tribal traditions in our Blackfeet homeland in Montana, where many of us still live today. He went to Washington D.C. where he forced the U.S. government to honor Indian treaties. He served as a model for the U.S. Mint's famous 1913 'Indian head' nickel. White Calf's face is still a collector's item. The family Chief Two Guns White Calf wants his image restored to the NFL team. Getty Images Uncle Two Guns was friends with Teddy Roosevelt Jr., New York Gov. Al Smith and made President Calvin Coolidge a member of the Blackfeet Nation. White Calf was so famous in his era that his death in 1934 was front-page news across the country. Advertisement White Calf became the proud warrior face of the Redskins in 1972, championed by Blackfeet leader Blackie Wetzel and with support of Native Americans across the country. Cancel-culture racists decided at some point they wanted to get rid of Indian images in the public domain. The Redskins and Two Guns were their No. 1 target. White Calf's name was dropped from the Redskins narrative. His life story was erased from history. Even worse: Uncle Two Guns was dehumanized. He was ridiculed as a 'savage and clownish mascot.' The National Congress of American Indians Fund, which led the effort to erase and ridicule Uncle Two Guns, was funded in part by the George Soros foundation. Advertisement They reduced a hero to a clown so they could remove American Indians from American history. Polls by the Washington Post and others showed that 90% of Indians supported the Redskins. Nobody cared what Indians thought. Nobody asked the White Calf family for our opinion. The family of Blackfeet chief John Two Guns White Calf is deeply grateful to President Donald Trump for his bold calls to bring back the Washington Redskins and expose racial injustice. Washington's NFL team is now known as the Commanders. Getty Images Advertisement President Trump cares. And here is our opinion: it is time to correct history and end racial injustice. We ask that the Washington Redskins — still the Redskins to us — work with President Trump to reclaim their rightful name and their proud image of American hero John Two Guns White Calf. We ask that the White Calf family be given a seat at the table. We ask that a Hall of Honor be established within a new Redskins stadium where the public can celebrate Two Guns White Calf, the Blackfeet people and American Indian contributions to the founding of the United States. Finally, we ask that the American Indian never be erased, dehumanized or forgotten again. God Bless the Blackfeet. God Bless President Trump. And God Bless the United States of America.
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
Campaigners fighting Sizewell C granted hearing in the High Court
Campaigners fighting the new Sizewell C nuclear power station have been granted a hearing in the High Court. Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) is seeking a judicial review into plans for additional sea defences as part of the project. The action group is calling for Sizewell C's development consent order, granted in 2022, to be revoked or varied. READ MORE: Suffolk: High Court rejects Sizewell legal challenge A judge at the High Court will hear TASC's representatives claim project developer, power firm EDF, kept plans for the flood barriers secret in order to avoid scrutiny. A decision would then be made on whether to grant a judicial review hearing, which would take place at a later date. A TASC spokesperson said: "Sizewell C's attempt to avoid scrutiny of these additional sea defences now means the project is proceeding without its full environmental impact having been assessed, this being in contravention of the UK Habitat Regulations. "Sizewell C clearly believe they can do as they see fit with our heritage coast, national landscape and designated wildlife sites irrespective of the damage they will cause – this government, the largest shareholder in Sizewell C, must be challenged on this." TASC believe that the barriers were omitted from the original planning application that was granted development consent and fear that their construction could disrupt nearby wildlife habitats. READ MORE: Sizewell C campaigners lose High Court challenge for Suffolk The campaigners would like less invasive flood barrier options to be pursued. TASC has lost previous judicial reviews into the new station, which is set to cost £38 billion, including in June 2023 when the High Court rejected a legal challenge over the disposal of nuclear waste and the provision of a water supply. In 2022, a similar legal challenge claiming the development was unlawful because of concerns about the maintenance of a water supply, was also rejected.


CNBC
16 hours ago
- CNBC
Trump says no imminent plans to penalize China for buying Russian oil
U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday he did not immediately need to consider retaliatory tariffs on countries such as China for buying Russian oil but might have to "in two or three weeks." Trump has threatened sanctions on Moscow and secondary sanctions on countries that buy its oil if no moves are made to end the war in Ukraine. China and India are the top two buyers of Russian oil. The president last week imposed an additional 25% tariff on Indian goods, citing its continued imports of Russian oil. However, Trump has not taken similar action against China. He was asked by Fox News' Sean Hannity if he was now considering such action against Beijing after he and Russian President Vladimir Putin failed to produce an agreement to resolve or pause Moscow's war in Ukraine. "Well, because of what happened today, I think I don't have to think about that," Trump said after his summit with Putin in Alaska. "Now, I may have to think about it in two weeks or three weeks or something, but we don't have to think about that right now. I think, you know, the meeting went very well." Chinese President Xi Jinping's slowing economy will suffer if Trump follows through on a promise to ramp up Russia-related sanctions and tariffs. Xi and Trump are working on a trade deal that could lower tensions - and import taxes - between the world's two biggest economies. But China could be the biggest remaining target, outside of Russia, if Trump ramps up punitive measures.