Article By: MEENAKSHY V

BBA LLB 5^TH YEAR

KRISTUJAYANTI COLLEGE OF LAW

A recent decision by the Chhattisgarh High Court has stirred public debate and raised critical questions about the application of laws related to marital rape and unnatural sex. In a case involving Gorakhnath Sharma, a 40-year-old man from Jagdalpur, the court’s ruling has raised concerns about the protection of women’s rights in India.

The Case

On December 11, 2017, Gorakhnath Sharma was accused of committing unnatural sex and rape against his wife. The victim allegedly suffered severe injuries and was rushed to Maharani Hospital. That same day, her dying declaration was recorded, where she purportedly accused her husband of forced unnatural sex. Tragically, she passed away a few hours later.

The police subsequently added Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) to the charges. In 2019, the trial court convicted Sharma, sentencing him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under Sections 377 (unnatural sex), 375 (rape), and 304 (culpable homicide) of the IPC. However, Sharma appealed the decision to the Chhattisgarh High Court, which acquitted him on February 10, 2025.

1. Medical Examination

The postmortem examination, conducted by Dr. Kolaskar Shashikant, revealed two perforations in the victim’s rectum, which were identified as the cause of peritonitis (an abdominal infection) that ultimately led to her death. While the prosecution argued that these injuries were a result of forced unnatural sex, the defense countered with the claim that the victim had a pre-existing medical condition—piles (hemorrhoids)—which could have caused the rectal bleeding and pain. The medical report did not conclusively state that the injuries were caused by forced penetration, and no forensic evidence directly linked the injuries to sexual assault.

2. Dying Declaration

The dying declaration, recorded by Executive Magistrate R.P. Baghel, was central to the prosecution’s case. However, serious discrepancies were found in how it was documented. The victim allegedly told the Magistrate that her husband had committed unnatural sex, but this statement was not fully included in the official declaration. Furthermore, the Magistrate admitted in court that parts of the statement were omitted, and he did not remember the name of the doctor present during the declaration. More importantly, the victim used the word “forceful” rather than “forced,” which significantly impacted the case.

The distinction between “forceful” and “forced” is critical in legal contexts. “Forced” clearly implies non-consensual actions, whereas “forceful” could simply describe the intensity or aggressiveness of an act without necessarily indicating lack of consent. The prosecution’s failure to prove the absence of consent weakened their argument.

3. Witness Testimonies

Key prosecution witnesses, including the victim’s family members, contradicted the claims of the prosecution. These witnesses stated that the victim had suffered from piles and had experienced rectal bleeding prior to the incident in question. One of the victim’s relatives, PW-13 Kumkum, testified that the victim had complained of stomach pain on the morning of December 11, 2017, before being taken to the hospital. The prosecution’s own witnesses created reasonable doubt, further weakening the case.

The Legal Context:

While India has legal provisions to address spousal sexual violence, none of these applied in this case. The charge under Section 498A IPC (Cruelty by Husband), which covers physical and mental abuse within marriage, was not filed. The case focused specifically on unnatural sex and alleged rape.

Additionally, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, while recognizing sexual violence within marriage, is a civil law and does not result in criminal penalties such as imprisonment.

The Final Verdict:

On February 10, 2025, the Chhattisgarh High Court acquitted Gorakhnath Sharma, citing that the dying declaration was unreliable and improperly recorded. The court found insufficient evidence to prove that the victim’s death was directly caused by unnatural sex or any forceful act by her husband. It also noted that the prosecution failed to establish the absence of consent, which is crucial in cases of sexual assault. Furthermore, the court emphasized that unnatural sex between a man and his adult wife is not punishable under Indian law, as marital rape is not recognized as a criminal offense in the country. As a result, the court ordered Sharma’s immediate release.

Conclusion

This case serves as a stark reminder of the legal gaps that persist in India regarding marital rape and sexual violence within marriage. Despite existing laws that criminalize cruelty and domestic abuse, the lack of specific provisions on marital rape leaves women vulnerable. The judgment has raised pertinent questions about the judiciary’s stance on issues of spousal sexual violence and whether current laws are sufficient to protect women from such acts.

In a country where marital rape is not yet legally recognized as a crime, this judgment underscores the need for comprehensive legal reforms to ensure the protection of women’s rights, particularly within the confines of marriage.