‘Rape is rape’: Karnataka high court declines to drop marital rape case against man | Latest News India

BENGALURU: The Karnataka high court on Wednesday refused to drop rape costs framed by a trial court against a man for his spouse’s sexual assault, ruling that the wedding doesn’t confer any particular male privilege or a license for unleashing a “brutal beast” on the spouse.

“Institution of marriage does not confer, cannot confer and in my considered view, should not be construed to confer, any special male privilege or a license for unleashing of a brutal beast. If it is punishable to a man, it should be punishable to a man albeit, the man being a husband,” justice M Nagaprasanna stated in his verdict, declining to settle for the husband’s plea that he can’t be tried for marital rape underneath the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

“In my considered view, such an argument cannot be countenanced. A man is a man; an act is an act; rape is a rape, be it performed by a man the “husband” on the lady “wife”,” the bench identified.

In March 2017, the lady accused her husband of sodomy, aggravated sexual harassment assault of her 9-year-old daughter, home violence, inflicting damage. On finishing their investigation, the police added part 376 of IPC which relates to punishment for rape, and sections 5 (m) and (l) and part 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, which relate to repeated penetrative sexual assault.

The trial court ultimately framed costs for rape, cruelty by husband and felony intimidation, prompting the man to attraction against the subordinate court’s resolution.

Justice Nagaprasanna refused the man’s plea to drop the rape costs on the bottom that part 375 doesn’t criminalise intercourse between a man and his spouse, even when it is compelled.

The Karnataka authorities’s legislation officer advised the court throughout arguments that “since the husband is exempted from the allegation of Section 375 of the IPC, even if the facts warrant, it is for this court to consider the same in the light of the exception. But she (law officer) would submit that it is a matter for trial.”

The high court famous {that a} perusal of the grievance and written communications “would send a chilling effect on any human being reading the contents of it. The wife-the complainant, cries foul in no unmistakable terms that she is being brutally, sexually harassed keeping her as a sex slave for ages”.

“The exemption of the husband on committal of such assault/rape, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, cannot be absolute, as no exemption in law can be so absolute that it becomes a license for the commission of crime against society,” the court stated.

In his judgement, Justice Nagaprasanna questioned the exemption of marital rape from part 375 of IPC, observing that it was “regressive” and runs counter to the precept of equality enshrined underneath Article 14 of the Constitution.

It, nevertheless, underlined that the court was not moving into whether or not marital rape needs to be acknowledged as an offence or the exception be taken away by the legislature. “Women and men being equal under the Constitution cannot be made unequal by Exception-2 to Section 375 of the IPC. It is for the lawmakers to ponder over the existence of such inequalities in law,” the order stated.

“The charge sheet filed by the police after investigation also depicts graphic details of the demonic lust of accused No 1, who even according to the investigation has had unnatural sex; every time has sexual intercourse torturing or abusing the wife, or threatening to beat the daughter or beating the daughter, all for the satisfaction of the gory carnal lust,” the court noticed.

“The contents of the complaint are an outburst of tolerance of the wife of the brutal acts of the petitioner. It is akin to eruption of a dormant volcano. In the teeth of the facts, as narrated in the complaint, in my considered view, no fault can be found with the learned Sessions Judge taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC and framing a charge to that effect,” the court stated.

The bench identified {that a} sexual assault has grave penalties on the psychological well being of a spouse. It added that such acts have each psychological and physiological impacts on the lady, and “scar the soul of the wives.”

“The age-old thought and tradition that the husbands are the rulers of their wives, their body, mind and soul should be effaced. It is only on this archaic, regressive and preconceived notion, that cases of this kind are mushrooming in the nation…The Constitution, a fountainhead of all statutes, depicts equality. The (Indian Penal) Code practises discrimination,” the bench added.

Back to top button