Madhya Pradesh High Court Affirms Acquittal in Marital Unnatural Sex Case, Highlights Lack of Marital Rape Recognition Under IPC

The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the acquittal of a man who faced allegations of committing an unnatural sexual act against his wife.

Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi, presiding over the case, referred to key precedents including the Supreme Court’s ruling in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India and the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in Umang Singhar v. State of Madhya Pradesh. He observed that as of now, "marital rape" is not recognized as a criminal offence under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

In this case, the wife had accused her husband of cruelty, dowry demands, and forcing her into unnatural sexual acts. Consequently, an FIR was registered against the husband under various provisions: Sections 498-A (Cruelty), 377 (Unnatural Offences), 323 (Voluntarily Causing Hurt), 294 (Obscene Acts and Songs), 506 (Criminal Intimidation) read with Section 34 (Common Intention) of the IPC, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The wife’s counsel contended that despite substantial evidence, the husband was wrongfully discharged under Section 377 of IPC. In response, the husband's counsel defended the trial court’s decision, arguing that the Supreme Court had already decriminalized consensual unnatural sexual acts between adults, and that under the amended Section 375 of IPC, sexual acts between a husband and wife during a valid marriage do not constitute an offence under Section 377.

After hearing arguments from both sides, the High Court revisited several judicial precedents concerning the issue of unnatural sex within marriage. The bench emphasized that the current legal framework does not recognize marital rape as an offence under IPC.

Citing the ruling in Manish Sahu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court reiterated that under the amended definition of rape in Section 375 IPC, if a woman is above fifteen years of age and the marriage is valid, any sexual act by the husband—even if against the wife’s consent—does not amount to rape. It was further held that given the statutory position, lack of consent for such acts does not attract Section 377 in the context of marriage.

Ultimately, the Court found no legal error in the acquittal and dismissed the wife’s revision petition.