Delhi High Court: In a revision petition filed by the petitioner (‘husband’) seeking to set aside the order dated 16-2-2023, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC)(RC), Rohini Courts, Delhi (‘Sessions Court’), Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.*, stated that in the context of a marital relationship, Section 377 of IPC could 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 Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1. The Court stated that no prima facie case was made out against the husband for the offence under Section 377 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). Therefore, the impugned order directing the framing of charge was unsustainable in law and was liable to be set aside.
Background
In a complaint filed by the wife, wherein it was stated that the marriage between her and her husband was solemnized on 19-2-2022 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies, and her family had allegedly spent approximately Rs. 25 lakhs on the marriage. It was alleged that on the very first night, the wife discovered that her husband, was unable to consummate the marriage, even after taking the medication. Even during their stay in Manali, the situation remained unchanged.
The wife alleged that she had informed the same to her in-laws, they had refused to do anything and in fact, she was informed by her sister-in-law that the family was already aware of her husband’s alleged impotency prior to the marriage. When the wife had again confronted her in-laws, she was allegedly physically assaulted by them.
The wife alleged that the marriage was a conspiracy by her husband and father-in-law to establish illicit relations and extort money from her family. On these allegations, the FIR was initially registered for commission of offence under Sections 354/354B of the IPC. Thereafter, during further investigation, the wife further alleged forceful physical relations by her father-in-law and bother-in-law. The wife also stated that when she went to Manali, oral sexual intercourse had taken place between her and her husband. After completion of investigation, the police had filed charge-sheet for offence under Sections 354/354-B/376/377/323 of IPC against the accused persons.
However, after hearing arguments on charge, the Sessions Court discharged all the accused persons, except the husband. Thus, vide the impugned order, the Sessions Court found the petitioner liable to face trial for offence under Section 377 of IPC.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that the first issue raised by the husband was whether, in a subsisting marital relationship, an act of oral sex between husband and wife would attract the provisions of Section 377 of IPC. The Court noted that Exception 2 to Section 375 of IPC provided that sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, if she is not under fifteen years of age, is not rape. This creates a legal presumption that a wife’s consent to sexual intercourse was implied by virtue of marriage. In effect, the Court stated that as on date, the law did not recognise the concept of marital rape.
Thus, the Court opined that there was no basis to assume that a husband would not be protected from prosecution under Section 377 of IPC, as per Exception 2 to Section 375 of IPC since the law now presumes implied consent for sexual intercourse as well as sexual acts. Therefore, in the context of a marital relationship, Section 377 of IPC could 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 Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1.
Thus, the Court stated that the charge under Section 377 of IPC could not have been framed against the husband. A consensual oral or anal intercourse between any two adults, in private, was not a criminal offence punishable under Section 377 of IPC.
The Court reiterated that at the stage of framing charge, the Court was not required to conduct a meticulous examination of the evidence or to evaluate its probative value. However, there must exist a prima facie case, and a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence. A charge could not be framed merely based on vague allegations or when the material on record did not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offence.
Applying this principle to the present case, the Court stated that it was evident that there was not even a basic allegation by the wife that the oral sex was performed without her consent. There was 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, between any two adults was clearly missing.
Thus, the Court stated that no prima facie case was made out against the husband for the offence under Section 377 of IPC. Therefore, the impugned order directing the framing of charge was unsustainable in law and was liable to be set aside.
[X v. State (NCT of Delhi), CRL.REV. P. 990 of 2024, decided on 13-5-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mohd. Mustafa, Ratnesh Tiwari, Arpita Biswas and Md. Maroof, Advocates
For the Respondent: Rajkumar, APP for the State with SI Rakesh Kumar, P.S. Vijay Vihar.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
