Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Husband Accused Under Sections 376, 377 & 304 IPC: A Legal Analysis Author: Abhishek Jat, Advocate

Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Husband Accused Under Sections 376, 377 & 304 IPC: A Legal Analysis Author: Abhishek Jat, Advocate

 

 

Introduction

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently delivered a crucial judgment in Gorakhnath Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh (CRA No. 891 of 2019), reaffirming the judicial interpretation of marital rape and unnatural offenses under Indian criminal jurisprudence. The Court held that a husband cannot be prosecuted under Section 376 (rape) or Section 377 (unnatural offenses) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for engaging in sexual intercourse, including unnatural sex, with his major wife, even in the absence of her consent. The ruling underscores the long-standing exception in Indian criminal law regarding marital rape and highlights judicial scrutiny over charges framed under Section 304 IPC.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Gorakhnath Sharma, was convicted by the trial court for offenses under Sections 376, 377, and 304 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. The prosecution's case was built upon allegations that the appellant committed unnatural sex with his wife against her will on December 11, 2017. It was further alleged that the accused inserted his hand into the victim’s anus, causing severe pain and injuries. The victim subsequently fell ill and was hospitalized, where her dying declaration was recorded before an Executive Magistrate. She succumbed to her injuries on the same day.

The trial court convicted the appellant primarily based on the dying declaration and medical evidence, which indicated rectal perforations leading to peritonitis, ultimately causing the victim’s death. Aggrieved by the conviction, the appellant filed a criminal appeal before the High Court, challenging the legality and evidentiary sufficiency of the charges.

Court’s Observations and Legal Interpretation

1. Applicability of Sections 376 and 377 IPC in Marital Relations

The High Court, presided over by Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, examined whether Sections 376 and 377 IPC are applicable in cases where the accused and the victim are legally wedded spouses. Referring to the statutory framework, the Court observed:

• Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC explicitly states that sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, provided she is not below fifteen years of age, does not constitute rape.
• The legislative intent behind this exception is to exclude marital sexual relations from the purview of rape, thereby upholding the immunity granted to husbands under Indian law.
• With regard to Section 377 IPC (unnatural offenses), the Court noted that the provision criminalizes carnal intercourse "against the order of nature." However, it observed that in light of the exception in Section 375 IPC, an unnatural act between a husband and wife cannot be treated as an offense under Section 377 IPC.

Thus, the Court concluded that if the wife is a major, neither Section 376 nor Section 377 IPC can be invoked against the husband, even in cases where the wife did not consent to the act.

 

2. Dying Declaration and Evidentiary Value

The prosecution relied heavily on the victim’s dying declaration to establish the guilt of the accused. However, the Court subjected the declaration to strict scrutiny and found significant inconsistencies:

• The Executive Magistrate who recorded the statement admitted that he had not explicitly documented the victim's allegations regarding the unnatural act.
• Medical evidence suggested that the victim had a history of piles, which could have contributed to rectal injuries, raising reasonable doubts regarding the direct causation of death by the alleged act.
• Witnesses examined by the prosecution turned hostile and failed to corroborate key allegations.

In light of these factors, the Court held that the dying declaration lacked credibility and was insufficient to sustain a conviction.

3. Invalid Conviction Under Section 304 IPC

The trial court had convicted the appellant under Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) without recording a clear finding on how the offense was established. The High Court termed the conviction as ‘perverse’ and ‘patently illegal,’ emphasizing that:

• The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged act caused the victim’s death.
• There was no conclusive medical or forensic evidence linking the injuries directly to the appellant’s actions.
• In the absence of a legally sustainable finding, the trial court’s conviction under Section 304 IPC could not be upheld.

Final Verdict

The High Court, upon detailed examination of the legal provisions and evidentiary record, allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant of all charges under Sections 376, 377, and 304 IPC. The Court ordered his immediate release from custody.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has far-reaching legal implications:

1. Reaffirmation of Marital Rape Exception: The judgment reiterates that, under the existing legal framework, a husband cannot be prosecuted for rape or unnatural sex with his major wife, regardless of consent. This highlights the continuing debate over the criminalization of marital rape in India.
2. Strict Scrutiny of Dying Declarations: The case reinforces the principle that dying declarations, though admissible, must be scrutinized rigorously for inconsistencies before forming the sole basis of conviction.
3. Judicial Review of Convictions Under Section 304 IPC: The Court’s decision underscores the necessity for clear and cogent evidence before convicting an accused under serious charges like culpable homicide.

Conclusion

The Chhattisgarh High Court’s verdict in Gorakhnath Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh provides an important judicial perspective on the scope and limitations of marital rape laws in India. While it aligns with the current legal position under IPC, it also brings to the fore the pressing need for legislative reform on marital rape. Moreover, the ruling exemplifies the necessity for courts to ensure that convictions, especially those based on dying declarations, meet the stringent threshold of reliability and corroboration.

Citation:

• Case Title: Gorakhnath Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh
• Case No: CRA No. 891 of 2019
• Judgment Date: February 10, 2025
• Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Raj Kumar Patil, Advocate
• Counsel for State: Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate
• Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 16