Latest news with #Section377
News18
a day ago
- News18
Forced Unnatural Sex With Wife Amounts To Cruelty, Rules Madhya Pradesh High Court
Last Updated: The court, however, clarified that such acts don't amount to an offence under Section 377 IPC when committed within a subsisting marriage due to the exception in the statute The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior, addressing the limits of criminal liability within marriage, has held that committing unnatural sex with one's wife without her consent, accompanied by physical assault and cruelty, constitutes an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the court clarified that such acts do not amount to an offence under Section 377 IPC when committed within a subsisting marriage, due to the exception carved out in the statute. The single bench of Justice GS Ahluwalia made the observation while hearing a case arising from proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking quashing of an FIR registered at Police Station Sirol, District Gwalior. The FIR, lodged by the wife (Respondent No. 2), invoked Sections 377 (unnatural offences), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 498A (cruelty by husband or his relatives) of the IPC. According to the complainant, she was married to the applicant on May 2, 2023, under Hindu rites. At the time of marriage, her parents allegedly gave Rs 5 lakh in cash, household items, and a Bullet motorcycle. In her FIR, the wife accused the applicant of engaging in unnatural sex acts after consuming alcohol, often resorting to violence when she resisted. She further alleged persistent cruelty and abuse, despite attempts by her family and interventions by the Mahila Paramarsh Kendra and local police. The applicant's counsel contended that since the complainant was his legally wedded wife, the allegation of unnatural sex within marriage did not constitute an offence under Section 377 IPC. The counsel further asserted that if the primary allegation under Section 377 fails, then charges under Sections 498A and 323 should also not stand. The single bench examined the statutory framework and relevant judicial precedents. Citing the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India [(2018) 10 SCC 1], the court reiterated that consensual unnatural sex between adults is no longer criminalised under Section 377 IPC. However, the distinction in the present case was the absence of consent. Despite this, the court observed that Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC; which exempts sexual intercourse by a man with his wife (not under 15 years of age) from the definition of rape, remains operative under Indian law, unless the couple is living separately under a decree of judicial separation (in which case Section 376B IPC may apply). Accordingly, the court held: 'Thus, in nutshell, it can be said that if an unnatural sex takes place between two persons of either same gender or different gender with the consent of both the parties, then it would not be an offence under Section 377 of IPC." However, the court said that even where consent is absent, such acts within marriage are not punishable under Section 377 IPC due to the statutory exception. 'Thus the consent of both the parties is necessary for taking the act out of the purview of Section 377 of IPC," it said. Turning to the allegations under Section 498A IPC, the court emphasised that cruelty encompasses not only dowry-related abuse but also any wilful conduct that could cause grave mental or physical harm to the wife. The bench observed, 'Committing unnatural sex with wife against her wishes and on her resistance, assaulting and treating her with physical cruelty will certainly fall within the definition of cruelty." The court also clarified that demand for dowry is not a prerequisite to invoke Section 498A, as cruelty under the provision is not limited to financial coercion. The court partially allowed the petition. It quashed the charge under Section 377 IPC but upheld the continuation of criminal proceedings under Sections 498A and 323 IPC. The court held, 'Accordingly, this application is partially allowed. Offence under Section 377 is hereby quashed. However, FIR in relation to offence under Section 498A and 323 of IPC is upheld." First Published:
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- Hindustan Times
'Unnatural sex against wife's will is cruelty, but…', rules Madhya Pradesh high court
The Madhya Pradesh high court has ruled that forcing unnatural sex on one's wife, along with physical assault and cruelty, amounts to an offence under Section 498A of the IPC, The Times of India reported on Friday. However, it clarified that the husband cannot be prosecuted under Sections 377 or 376, since 'marital rape' is not a punishable offence under current Indian law. The court upheld the FIR filed by a woman against her husband. The police had earlier charged the husband under Sections 377 (unnatural offences), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 498A (cruelty by husband or relatives). The husband challenged the FIR, arguing that unnatural sex with one's wife is not a crime under Indian law. He also claimed that Section 498A should not apply, as the complaint did not include any dowry-related allegations. Justice GS Ahluwalia of the Gwalior bench observed in his order that while unnatural sex with one's wife doesn't amount to an offence under IPC sections 376 or 377, it can still constitute cruelty if accompanied by violence and physical abuse. "Committing unnatural sex with a wife against her wishes and on her resistance, assaulting and treating her with physical cruelty will certainly fall within the definition of cruelty. It is not out of place to mention here that demand of dowry is not sine qua non for cruelty." The TOI quoted the judge as saying. The order further explained that, "From a plain reading of IPC section 498A, it is clear that any wilful conduct which is of such nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life, limb, or health, whether mental or physical, to the woman, would amount to cruelty." While the court quashed the charge under Section 377, it held that there was enough evidence to proceed under other provisions. 'However, since there are specific allegations that whenever the wife resisted the unnatural conduct of petitioner, she was assaulted and treated with physical cruelty, this court is of the opinion that offence under section 498A IPC is made out,' the court said. 'Accordingly, this application is partially allowed. Offence under section 377 is hereby quashed. However, FIR in relation to offence under Section 498A and 323 stands,' it added. In a February ruling, the Chhattisgarh high court held that a husband cannot be prosecuted for rape or unnatural sex for engaging in sexual activity with his adult wife, regardless of her consent, Live Law reported. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, presiding over a single-judge bench, stated that the wife's consent is irrelevant in such cases of sexual or unnatural intercourse within marriage. The case involved an incident from December 11, 2017, in which a man allegedly forced his wife into unnatural sex against her will. Following the act, the woman was hospitalised and later died. In her dying declaration, she accused her husband of forceful sexual intercourse. Doctors later found that she died due to peritonitis and rectal perforation. Despite this, the court noted that under Indian law, sexual acts with a wife who is not under 15 years of age do not qualify as rape. As a result, it ruled that unnatural sex in marriage cannot be treated as a criminal offence. The husband, who had been sentenced to 10 years in prison by a trial court, was ultimately acquitted of all charges.
The Hindu
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Delhi HC asks Centre to consider plea for law against sexual crimes on animals
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (May 28, 2025) asked the Centre to treat as a representation a petition by the Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organisations (FIAPO) seeking urgent and specific legal provision to prosecute sexual crimes against animals. Also Read | Concerns grow over legal vacuum as India moves to repeal Section 377 in the wake of disturbing cases of sexual assault of animals The petition came in the wake of the complete repeal of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The plea argued that though Section 377 was rightly read down by the Supreme Court in its 2018 judgment to decriminalise consensual same-sex relationships, the Section's complete deletion from the BNS has inadvertently decriminalised sexual violence against animals, leaving them unprotected by law. The plea said there is a 'legal vacuum' created by the omission of provision dealing with sexual crimes against animals, which were previously covered under Section 377. FIAPO, in its plea, also highlighted close to 50 cases of sexual abuse against farmed, companion and wild animals. It said in just the month of April 2025, three cases came to light: in Delhi's Shahdara area, where a man was arrested for allegedly raping multiple dogs; in Delhi's Saket area, where a pet dog was found unconscious on the road and died later, with a condom being retrieved from the dog's private parts; and in Coimbatore's Temple Town, where a construction worker was found sexually abusing a dog. The court, however, observed that it would not interfere with the legislative procedure. It directed the government to decide the issue in a time-bound manner.
News18
23-05-2025
- News18
Section 377 Is Not Attracted To Consensual Oral Sex With Wife: Delhi HC
Last Updated: The High Court quashed the order framing charges under Section 377 IPC against the husband, clarifying that consensual sex between married adults fall outside its scope. In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court partially overturned a trial court order that had framed charges under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against a husband. The High Court held that in the context of a marital relationship, the provision could not be invoked in the absence of clear allegations of non-consensual sexual acts. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while allowing the revision petition, observed, 'It is evident that there is not even a basic allegation by the complainant that the act of oral sex was performed without her consent. There is neither any assertion of resistance nor any mention of physical force, threat, intimidation, or any element that would negate consent. In the absence of such an averment, the essential ingredient of lack of consent – central to constituting an offence under Section 377 of IPC post-Navtej Singh Johar between any two adults – is clearly missing. Thus, there is not only a lack of prima facie case, but even the threshold of strong suspicion is not met." The case arose from a complaint by the wife, who alleged that her husband was unable to consummate the marriage despite taking medication. When she raised this concern with her in-laws, she was allegedly assaulted. Later, while staying at her parental home, she claimed her father-in-law attempted to rape her. According to her, the marriage was a plot by her husband and father-in-law to exploit her financially and sexually. An FIR was subsequently registered under Sections 354, 354B, 376, 377, and 323 IPC. The wife later stated in her Section 164 CrPC testimony that the couple engaged in oral sex during their honeymoon in Manali. The trial court treated this as non-consensual and framed a charge under Section 377 IPC. The High Court analysed the scope of Section 377 IPC post the Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) decision, which decriminalised consensual sexual acts between adults. It noted that after the 2013 amendment, Section 375 IPC, while broadening the definition of rape, retained Exception 2, which exempts a husband from rape charges within marriage (where the wife is above 15 years). The court emphasised that in the absence of allegations of force or absence of consent, Section 377 cannot apply. It was further reiterated that while framing of charges requires only a prima facie case, even that threshold wasn't met. Accordingly, the High Court quashed the order framing charges under Section 377 IPC against the husband, clarifying that consensual sexual acts between married adults fall outside the scope of this provision. Watch India Pakistan Breaking News on CNN-News18. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! First Published:
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
22-05-2025
- Business Standard
'Law doesn't recognise marital rape': HC drops sex charge against husband
The Delhi High Court has set aside a trial court order directing the framing of charges under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against a man accused of performing oral sex on his wife, ruling that marital rape is not recognised under Indian law. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, hearing the husband's plea, observed that Section 377—which criminalises "unnatural offences"—cannot be invoked in the absence of non-consensual allegations within a marital relationship. 'There is no basis to assume that a husband would not be protected from prosecution under Section 377 of IPC, in view of Exception 2 to Section 375 of IPC,' the court said, adding that the law presumes implied consent for both sexual intercourse and sexual acts, including anal and oral intercourse, within marriage. The court noted that the wife had not specifically alleged lack of consent, and cited the Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India, which decriminalised consensual sex between adults under Section 377. The ruling reaffirmed that consent remains central to any criminal charge under the provision. 'The essential ingredient of lack of consent – central to constituting an offence under Section 377 of IPC post-Navtej Singh Johar – is clearly missing. Thus, there is not only a lack of prima facie case, but even the threshold of strong suspicion is not met,' the court said. It concluded: 'No prima facie case is made out against the petitioner for the offence under Section 377 of IPC. The impugned order directing the framing of charge is, therefore, unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside.' Contradictions and legal implications The wife had also alleged that the husband was 'impotent', and that the marriage was part of a conspiracy to extort her family. In response, the husband argued that the marriage was valid and that consensual sexual acts within marriage do not attract criminal liability under Section 377. Justice Sharma noted a contradiction in the wife's statements—accusing the husband of impotence while also alleging that he performed oral sex. The court further clarified that oral or anal intercourse is now included under the expanded definition of rape in Section 375(a) IPC, but remains exempt from prosecution when committed by a husband, due to the existing marital exception. 'In the context of a marital relationship, Section 377 of IPC cannot be applied to criminalise non-penile-vaginal intercourse between a husband and wife. Such an interpretation would be in line with the reasoning and observations of the Supreme Court in Navtej Singh Johar,' the court added.
