Forced sex with wife does not amount to rape, says Chhattisgarh HC
Bilaspur, Aug 26: The Chhattisgarh High Court has discharged a 37-year-old man in a rape case filed against him by his wife after observing that sexual intercourse or any sexual act with a legally wedded wife is not rape even if done by force or against her wish.
However, the HC did not grant any relief to the man who was also charged under IPC section 377 (unnatural offences).
Justice NK Chandravanshi delivered the judgement on August 23 in a criminal revision plea filed by the man and his two family members, seeking to quash rape charge (against him) and other offences framed against them, their lawyer YC Sharma said on Thursday.
As per the order, the victim married the man, a native of Changorabhata in Raipur, in 2017. After a few days of marriage, the woman's husband and her two in-laws allegedly started harassing her for dowry.
The woman later lodged a complaint at the Bemetara police station of Bemetara district against the three.
After investigation, a charge-sheet under section 498-A (dowry harassment), 377 (unnatural offences), 376 (rape), 34 (common intention) of the IPC was filed against them. After providing opportunity of hearing to counsels of both the parties, a trial court had framed charges against the applicants under these sections, the order said.
The trio, including woman's husband, approached the High Court seeking to set aside the order of the trial court and discharge them from the charges, including that of rape against him. Counsel for the applicants submits that the complainant and the applicant No. 1 (man) are legally wedded wife and husband, therefore, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 377 of the IPC are spelt out against him, because, in India, marital rape is not recognized and the same is not an offence in view of Exception II of Section 375 of the IPC, the HC said.
The counsel had prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the applicants be discharged from charges brought against them, it said.
After hearing, the HC had reserved its order on August 13 and it was delivered on Monday (August 23).
The order said, Exception II of Section 375 of the IPC, referred to above, makes it clear that sexual intercourse or sexual act by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under eighteen years of age, is not rape." The judge said charge under IPC section 376 (rape) against the man was erroneous and illegal.
In this case, complainant is legally wedded wife of applicant No. 1, therefore, sexual intercourse or any sexual act with her by the husband would not constitute an offence of rape, even if it was by force or against her wish. Therefore, charge under Section 376 of the IPC framed against the husband is erroneous and illegal. Hence, he is entitled to be discharged from the charge under Section 376 of the IPC , it said.
In the instant case, the complainant has reported that the husband has many times, without her consent, made unnatural physical relation with her. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity or illegality committed by learned trial court in framing the charge under Section 377 of the IPC against the husband, the HC said.
The HC said no illegality has been committed in framing other charges against the accused.
Consequently, the instant revision is partly allowed. The applicant No. 1 (husband) is discharged from the charge framed against him under Section 376 of the I.P.C. This Court finds that trial Court has not committed any illegality in framing the charge under Section 377 and 498-A/34 of the IPC against all the applicants, it added.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
CJI's advice to aspirant: Join the bar, become a lawyer, don't hanker for judicial services post
New Delhi (PTI): She came to the Supreme Court seeking a re-evaluation of her paper in the examination for joining judicial services as a magistrate. What she got instead was a rejection — and a candid confession by the Chief Justice that he too had wanted to join the judicial services in his youth but was advised by a senior judge to become a lawyer instead.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi on Friday dismissed a plea filed by Prerna Gupta, the judicial services aspirant.
As Gupta pressed her case, the CJI intervened and said, "Let me share my personal story and I hope you will go happily as we cannot allow your petition."
He recounted his time as a final-year law student in 1984 when he wanted to become a judicial officer. As per requirement, he cleared the written test and was set to appear for an interview.
Judicial services is one of the two routes to become a judge after initially joining as a magistrate in lower court and thereafter rising through the ranks to become judge in a high court and possibly the Supreme Court.
The other route is to join the Bar, which means becoming a lawyer, and after building a reputation be picked from the Bar to become a judge at a senior level.
By the time the CJI's exam results came out, he had started practising at the Punjab and Haryana High Court when he was called for the interview.
The senior-most judge on the interview panel happened to be a judge before whom he had recently argued two significant matters.
"One of the matters was Sunita Rani vs Baldev Raj, where he had allowed my appeal in a matrimonial case and set aside the decree of divorce granted by the District Judge on the ground of schizophrenia," he noted.
Before the interview could take place, the judge called the young Surya Kant to his chamber and asked, 'Do you want to become a judicial officer?'
"I said 'yes.' He immediately said, 'Get out from (my) the chamber.'"
The courtroom fell silent as the CJI Justice described his initial heartbreak.
“I came out trembling. All my dreams were shattered. I thought he had snubbed me and that my career was over,” the CJI said.
However, the story took another turn the following day and the judge summoned him again, this time offering a piece of advice that would change the trajectory of his life.
“He said, ‘If you want to become (a judge), you are welcome. But my advice is, don’t become a judicial officer. The Bar is waiting for you,’” Justice Surya Kant recalled.
The CJI said he decided to skip his interview and didn't even tell his parents at first, fearing their disappointment, and instead chose to dedicate himself to his practice as an advocate.
“Now tell me did I make a bad right or bad decision,” the CJI asked and the litigant lawyer left the court with a smile on her face despite her case being dismissed.
Encouraging the petitioner to look toward the future rather than dwelling on the re-evaluation of a single paper, Justice Surya Kant said, "The Bar has much to offer."
