Chhattisgarh High Court Judgment in a Marital Rape Case is Shocking Denial of Justice

 

Judgment of acquittal passed by the Chhattisgarh High Court in a case of marital rape where the wife died due to the sexual brutality of the husband is nothing but a mockery of justice. The case belongs to the Jagdalpur district of Chhattigarh. The accused husband, a driver, committed unnatural sex with his wife, and left her in pain, who died in a hospital. In her dying declaration, recorded before a magistrate, the victim alleged that her husband had inserted his hand in her anus, following which she suffered excruciating pain.

The woman was admitted to the hospital for treatment, from where a report was made to the police station concerned and the offence under IPC Section 377 (unnatural sex) was registered against her husband.

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, under Section 32 deals with the concept of a “dying declaration”. Usually, a dying declaration is only admitted as evidence in cases where the cause of a person’s death comes into question. This concept is based on the Latin legal maxim “nemomoriturus prae-sumitur mentire” which means a man will not meet his maker (God) with a lie in his mouth.

In Naeem vs the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court ruled that a dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction, but courts must find it to be trustworthy, and one that inspires confidence.

Notably, in this case, the doctor who had conducted a postmortem of the deceased’s body had said there were “two perforations on the rectum”, one on the anterior side and another above the pelvic floor, causing him to conclude that the victim died on 11 December 2017, as a result of the same.

In February 2019, a trial court at Jagdalpur convicted the husband under Sections 376 (rape), 377 (unnatural sex), and 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and sentenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,000. However, the Chhattisgarh High Court later acquitted him, citing the marital rape exception under Section 375 IPC, which states that sexual intercourse by a man with his wife, if she is above 15 years of age, is not considered rape. Here the wife was said to be over 15 years.

It also cited the five-judge SC bench’s ruling in Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India (2018) to say that if an “unnatural offence is done with consent, then the offence of Section 377 IPC is not made out”.It is ridiculous to say that the wife consented to her husband to insert his hand in her anus. The law, it is often said is like an ass but all the same, it is also true that insensitive justice is no justice. This decision was the height of insensitivity. 

Most women, from a very young age, are sold the idea that safety and prestige come with marriage. However, ironically, marriage becomes just another apparatus in patriarchy’s arsenal, to perpetuate violence, as was seen in this case. Rape isn’t merely about a violation of a person’s consent but also involves an assertion of power that men enjoy in a patriarchal society.

The central argument against criminalising marital rape is the fear of its misuse, a reiteration of each time when laws have been proposed for the protection of the marginalised. This decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court is a clear miscarriage of justice and very shocking. Sex with a wife without her consent may fall within exception 2 in section 375 but extreme brutality resulting in her death is frightening, to say the least.