Man escapes charges of marital rape because of “inconsistency in the law”

When the matter of marital rape had come up for discussion, eagerness was shown by everyone to pass a Bill prohibiting and punishing it. But nothing came out of it. In a bizarre case, a man, who was charged with a case by his wife for unnatural and forced sex, claimed cover, citing the reason as “ inconsistency in the law regarding marital rape” . The petitioner has also sought legal clarity following amendments carried out in 2013 making criminal law for sexual offences against women more stringent. In his plea, Abdulla Khan has claimed there is legal & quot inconsistency& quot after Parliament amended the IPC sections dealing with crimes relating to rape. He argued that though Section 377 of IPC (unnatural sex) is punishable, the 2013 special amendments protect marital sex, even if without consent, from prosecution as reflected in Clause (a) to (d) read with Exception 2 of Section 375 of IPC. An HC bench sought a response from the Union ministry of law and the Delhi government on Khan's plea which challenged his trial by a Saket court under Section 377. Khan was booked in 2014 by police in Jait pur on the basis of a complaint lodged by his wife accusing him of forcible unnatural sex. Through his lawyers Amit Kumar and Anand Ranjan, Khan maintained there is & quot uncertainty& quot in the two penal provisions of IPC as section 375 IPC has an exception that & quot sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under 15 years of age, is not rape& quot while Section 377 is punishable. However, since the amended Section 375 is a special law, it will prevail over the older one, Khan's counsels submitted. & quot The legal issue raised by the petitioner deserves to be settled determined by this court in the interest of public at large as the said uncertain unsettled position of law has been infringing the respective rights of the husband and wife,& quot the petition added, questioning the logic of the alleged act of husband being penal at one place and non-penal at other place in IPC. The high court bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal has posted the case for August 29. In 2013, Khan married a 20-year-old woman who later lodged an FIR against him for alleged offences of rape and unnatural sex. The trial court had discharged him for the offence of rape but was put on trial on the charge of committing unnatural sex with his wife. The man was granted bail by high court in January 2015.

OUR TAKE

The marital rape ghost has come back to haunt the lawmakers after this incident. Legal clarity was sought after when this matter had popped up months earlier. None was given. Today, people are taking advantage of that very point and using it to their advantage. Marital rape is surely a sin and a crime by law and should be dealt with strictly. Although this case has taught us one thing for sure- understanding and reading the law could help you wriggle out of some situation!