Name: Shrey Arora
Course: BBA LLB
Semester: 1st
Dilip Pandey vs. State of
Chhattisgarh
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
FACTS
Dilip Pandey (applicant1) and the complainant married on June 8, 2017,
and they lived together afterward. The complainant was harassed, bullied, and
assaulted by the applicant and his family for dowry after only a few days of
marriage. The complainant's husband (applicant 1) had also engaged in abnormal
physical relations with her on multiple occasions.
Both families made efforts to settle the conflict, but it was in vain.
As a result, the wife filed a complaint against the applicants. Following
additional inquiry, a charge sheet was filed under I.P.C. Sections 498-A, 377,
376, and 34.
After hearing from the lawyers for both sides, the trial court
established accusations against the petitioners under the aforementioned areas.
As a result, the petitioners prefer this criminal amendment to the Trial
Court's ruling.
Issues
• Whether the
trial Court committed an infirmity or illegality in drafting the charge under
Sections 34, 376, 377, and 489 A?
• Can a husband
be charged under Section 376 if the forcible intercourse occurred with his own
wife?
CONTENTION OF PARTIES
Prosecution:
The attorney
began by explaining that applicant 1 and complainant are lawfully married
husband and wife. Because marital rape is not recognised in India, applicant 1
cannot be charged under 376. The council further said that one of the required
criteria for establishing section 377 is that the carnal intercourse against
the order of nature be done freely, which is not present in this case.
Defence:
The state's
council had not presented any compelling justifications. The council had
appealed not to release the petitioners from the allegations brought against
them.
DECISION/ JUDGMENT
Following an
examination of the facts and evidence, the single bench jury in this case
dismissed application no. 1 on charges under section 376 of the IPC.
Furthermore, the learned trial court was found to have done no illegality in
framing the petitioners under the remaining three provisions of the I.P.C.
The change was
permitted in part.
To support its
conclusion, the court provided the following reasoning:
Charges under section 376
Section 375 of
the Indian criminal code defines rape. Exception 2 of the clause states that if
the intercourse happened between a legally married husband and wife, it does
not constitute rape, even if it was coerced.
The charge sheet
provided to the court shows that the complainant and applicant are lawfully
married husband and wife. As a result, the sexual intercourse or any sexual act
conducted by the spouse (applicant 1) with the complainant would not constitute
a rape offence. As a result, the applicant 1 was exonerated of the allegations
brought against him under Section 376.
Charges under section 377
Section 377 of
the IPC deals with unnatural physical relations; in the case of Momina Begum
(supra), it was decided that under provision 377, if an offender's main motive
was to gain sexual gratification in an unnatural way, the offender's act would
be considered liable under this section.
Consent is not a
decisive criterion in the event of unnatural physical interactions; any
violation of nature's order might be construed as carnal penetration and would
constitute an offence under section 377.In this instance, the woman claims that
her husband engaged in abnormal physical relations with her on several
occasions against her will.
The offender's
primary goal was to acquire unnatural sexual enjoyment by repeatedly putting
any item into the victim's sex organ; this conduct would constitute a carnal
intercourse against the natural order.As a result, the court determined that no
error or illegality was done by the learned trial Court in drafting the
accusation under Section 377 of the I.P.C. against the applicant 1 husband.
Charges under section 498 A and 34
Section 34 is
concerned with common aim. Section 498 A addresses the harassment of the woman
by her husband or his family.
Based on the
facts in this instance. In addition to the written report and the complainant's
statements. The plaintiff was exposed to mistreatment by all three applicants
after only a few days of marriage. On the demand for dowry, she was harassed
and abused.
The
complainant's parents have agreed with this statement. It was also revealed in
the police testimony of the witnesses who lived nearby.
As a result, the
court found no flaw in charging the petitioners under Section 498-A/34 of the
I.P.C.
