The Chhattisgarh High Court’s ruling in the case of a Jagdalpur resident acquitted of rape and unnatural sex with his wife has sparked widespread debate about marital rape laws in India and the legal interpretation of consent within marriage. The judgment, delivered by Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, held that sexual intercourse, including unnatural sex, by a husband with his adult wife, even without her consent, cannot be treated as an offense under the existing provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court’s decision was primarily based on the exception provided under Section 375 of the IPC, which states that sexual acts within marriage do not constitute rape unless the wife is under the age of 15.
The case dates back to December 2017, when the accused was arrested based on a dying declaration given by his wife before her death. The woman had reportedly complained of severe pain to her family members and stated that her husband had committed unnatural sex with her against her will. She was admitted to a government hospital, where she passed away the same day. Before her death, her statement was recorded before an executive magistrate, in which she claimed that her husband had forcefully engaged in sexual intercourse with her, leading to her deteriorating health. Based on this statement, the man was charged under Sections 376 (rape), 377 (unnatural sex), and 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the IPC.
The trial court in Bastar convicted him in 2019 and sentenced him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. However, the accused later approached the Chhattisgarh High Court in Bilaspur, challenging the lower court’s decision. During the appeal proceedings, his counsel argued that there was no legally admissible evidence to support the conviction and that the prosecution’s case was primarily based on the victim’s statement. The defense also contended that the woman had been suffering from piles after childbirth, which had caused her to experience pain and bleeding, thus casting doubt on the prosecution’s claims.
In its ruling, the High Court examined the legal framework surrounding marital rape and unnatural sex under the IPC. The court emphasized that Section 375, as amended in 2013, includes an exception that prevents sexual intercourse between a husband and wife from being classified as rape. The court noted that the marital rape exception under Indian law states that a husband cannot be charged with raping his wife unless she is below 15 years of age. It further observed that Section 377, which criminalizes unnatural sex, does not explicitly define an offender but rather focuses on the nature of the act itself. The judgment also referenced the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in the Navtej Singh Johar case, which decriminalized consensual same-sex relations but retained provisions penalizing non-consensual acts. The High Court interpreted this ruling to mean that non-consensual unnatural sex within a marriage does not constitute an offence under Section 377.
The court further examined the applicability of Section 304 IPC, which pertains to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and concluded that the trial court had failed to establish how the charge was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Justice Vyas described the conviction under Section 304 as “perverse” and lacking legal merit. He held that the trial court had not provided any clear reasoning for how the charge was applicable in the given circumstances. Consequently, the High Court set aside the trial court’s ruling, acquitted the man of all charges, and ordered his immediate release from prison.
The judgment has triggered widespread outrage and renewed calls for urgent legal reform to criminalize marital rape in India. Legal experts, women’s rights activists, and social commentators have strongly criticized the ruling, arguing that it highlights the urgent need to recognize and address sexual violence within marriage. Critics argue that the judgment reinforces outdated and patriarchal legal provisions that fail to acknowledge a wife’s bodily autonomy and consent. They point out that while non-consensual sex is considered a crime in most countries, India remains one of the few where marital rape is not explicitly recognized as an offence.
Many activists have expressed concern over the interpretation of Section 377 in this case, arguing that it sets a dangerous precedent by suggesting that a wife’s lack of consent to unnatural sex is legally irrelevant. They contend that the judgment contradicts the principles of consent and bodily autonomy upheld in the Navtej Singh Johar ruling, which emphasized that all sexual acts must be based on free and informed consent. Additionally, the verdict has raised concerns about the impact on women’s legal protections and the broader fight for gender equality in India.
The case has also brought renewed attention to the long-pending legal battle to criminalize marital rape. Several petitions challenging the marital rape exception are currently pending before the Supreme Court, with advocates pushing for a progressive interpretation of the law that aligns with global human rights standards. Women’s rights groups have called on the government to amend the IPC and remove the exception that shields husbands from rape charges, arguing that the current legal framework denies justice to married women who experience sexual violence.
The ruling also underscores the broader challenges in addressing gender-based violence in India’s legal system. Despite several reforms in recent years, including the introduction of stricter anti-rape laws following the 2012 Delhi gang rape case, marital rape remains a glaring exception. Activists argue that this exception not only perpetuates gender inequality but also normalizes coercive sexual relations within marriage, leaving women vulnerable to abuse.
While the Chhattisgarh High Court’s ruling is based on the existing legal provisions, the widespread backlash against the verdict highlights the urgent need for legislative and judicial reforms to ensure that all women, regardless of marital status, have equal protection under the law. The ongoing debate surrounding marital rape laws is expected to intensify, with increasing pressure on lawmakers and the judiciary to bring India’s legal framework in line with international human rights norms.
The case has also sparked discussions on the need for a more nuanced and victim-centric approach to sexual violence cases in India. Legal experts have emphasized the importance of recognizing consent as the foundation of all sexual relationships, including within marriage. They argue that any legal framework that disregards a wife’s lack of consent effectively legitimizes coercion and violence, undermining the fundamental principles of justice and human rights.
As the debate continues, all eyes will be on the Supreme Court and the government’s response to the growing demands for change. The verdict has once again brought to the forefront the critical issue of marital rape, highlighting the need for urgent and comprehensive legal reforms to protect the rights and dignity of all women in India.
