Safiya Malik

The High Court of Chhattisgarh has set aside the conviction of a man who was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment under Sections 376, 377, and 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court found that the trial court’s decision was based on insufficient and legally inadmissible evidence, including a dying declaration that did not inspire confidence. The appellant, who was the husband of the deceased victim, was previously convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bastar, Jagdalpur, in Sessions Trial No. 32 of 2018. After examining the evidence on record, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and ordered the immediate release of the accused.

The case stemmed from an incident on December 11, 2017, when the appellant was accused of committing unnatural sex with his wife, leading to severe medical complications. According to the prosecution, the victim narrated the incident to her relatives and was later admitted to Maharani Hospital, where she provided a dying declaration before the magistrate. The trial court relied on this statement, along with medical evidence, to convict the appellant. However, during the appeal, the High Court scrutinized the legal validity of the dying declaration and the applicability of Sections 376 and 377 IPC in a marital relationship.

The appellant challenged the trial court's findings, arguing that the victim’s medical history and the inconsistencies in witness statements created reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution’s case. The appellant's counsel submitted that key witnesses had turned hostile, and no direct evidence conclusively proved that the alleged act led to the victim’s death. The defense also pointed out that the victim had suffered from pre-existing medical conditions, including piles, which could have contributed to her deteriorating health. The High Court took note of these arguments and assessed whether the trial court had erred in relying solely on the disputed dying declaration.

The Court, while examining the dying declaration, stated: "A dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction only if it inspires the full confidence of the court. Where there is doubt regarding its authenticity or voluntariness, it must be corroborated by other reliable evidence."

Referring to the medical evidence, the Court observed that the cause of death was attributed to peritonitis due to rectal perforation. The prosecution argued that this was a direct result of the appellant’s actions. However, the Court noted inconsistencies in the statements of medical experts and found that the evidence did not conclusively establish the causal link between the alleged act and the victim’s death.

 The High Court also examined the legal interpretation of Sections 376 and 377 IPC within the context of a marital relationship. It referred to the exception under Section 375 IPC, which states that sexual intercourse by a husband with his wife, who is above the age of 15 years, does not constitute rape. Regarding Section 377 IPC, the Court considered previous Supreme Court rulings, including Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, which partially decriminalized consensual acts between adults.

The Court stated: "If the age of the wife is not below 15 years, then any sexual intercourse or sexual act by the husband with his wife cannot be termed as rape. In such circumstances, the absence of consent for an unnatural act loses its significance, making the application of Section 377 IPC questionable in the context of a marital relationship."

The Court further observed that there was no clear evidence proving that the alleged act was performed without consent or that it directly resulted in the victim’s death. Given the conflicting testimony and lack of corroborative medical evidence, the Court held that the conviction under Section 304 IPC was also unsustainable.

In its final judgment, the Court ruled: "The conviction of the appellant under Sections 376, 377, and 304 IPC is based on insufficient and unreliable evidence. The prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence are set aside, and the appellant is acquitted."

The Court directed that the appellant be released immediately if he was not required in any other case. It also ordered that any fine amount deposited by the appellant be refunded.

Case Title: Gorakhnath Sharma vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Case Number: CRA No. 891 of 2019

Bench: Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

[Read/Download order]