Case Brief on "Dilip Pandey vs. State of Chhattisgarh" by Shrey Arora

Name: Shrey Arora

Course: BBA LLB

Semester: 1st

College: Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies 

Dilip Pandey vs. State of Chhattisgarh



Name of the parties
Applicants: Dilip Pandey (Dinish Kumar, Smt. Varsha Pandey)
Non-Applicant/Respondent: State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: CRR/117/2021
Judge: N.K. Chandravanshi J.
Decided on: August 23, 2021



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.



• 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?




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.


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.



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.