Supreme Court Quashes Rape Charges Against Husband in Consensual Marriage Case: Kuldeep Singh vs. State of Punjab (2025) INSC 137 (31 January 2025)

Date of the Judgment: 31 January 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 137

Judges: Vikram Nath, J. and Prasanna B. Varale, J.

Can a husband be accused of rape if he has sexual intercourse with his wife? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a husband was accused of rape by his wife after they had married against her family’s wishes. The court examined the legal validity of such charges, especially considering the exception provided under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This judgment clarifies the legal position on marital rape within the framework of Indian law. The bench consisted of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, with the judgment authored by Justice Vikram Nath.

Case Background

The case revolves around a couple, Kuldeep Singh (the appellant) and Respondent No. 3 (the victim), who married against the wishes of the victim’s family. The victim was working at National Insurance Company and was dropped at her office by the complainant (Respondent No. 2) on the morning of 13.06.2022. Later that day, she left her office around 1:30 PM and did not return home. The complainant, who is also the victim’s cousin, suspected that the appellant had abducted her, as he had allegedly been harassing her. Consequently, an FIR No. 148 was lodged on 14.06.2022, under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the appellant.

The appellant contended that he and the victim had married on 15.06.2022, according to Sikh rites and ceremonies, against her family’s wishes. Following their marriage, the couple filed a protection petition (CRWP No. 5913 of 2022) before the High Court on 16.06.2022, seeking protection of their lives and liberty, which was granted on 21.06.2022. However, the victim returned to her parental home on 31.08.2022, leading the appellant to file a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

Subsequently, on 01.09.2022, the victim recorded a statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, alleging rape and forced marriage against the appellant. She also implicated the appellant’s mother and brother in the alleged crimes. Consequently, Sections 363, 120B, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, were added to the FIR.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Special Investigation Team (SIT) investigated the matter and filed a report. The police filed a challan under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, stating that the allegations of kidnapping and forced marriage were not proven. The SIT found that the victim had married the appellant with her consent. Consequently, Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was removed, and charges under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, remained against the appellant. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s petition seeking to quash the FIR, stating that the matter required a trial. Aggrieved by this, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provisions discussed in this case are:

• Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the offense of rape. Exception 2 of this section states that “Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape.”
• Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage.
• Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section prescribes the punishment for rape.
• Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the punishment for criminal intimidation.
• Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: This section deals with recording of confessions and statements.
• Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: This section deals with the report of police officer on completion of investigation.
• Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: This section deals with inherent powers of High Court.
• Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: This section deals with restitution of conjugal rights.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that he is the legally wedded husband of Respondent No. 3.
• He contended that no offense under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, can be made out against him due to Exception 2 of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The appellant highlighted that the victim, in her written statement dated 01.08.2023 in the restitution of conjugal rights case, did not allege rape.
• He also referred to the High Court order dated 21.06.2022 in CRWP No. 5913 of 2022, which granted protection to the couple, stating that the victim had married him out of her free will.
• The appellant emphasized that the victim did not dispute the facts despite being served notice.

State’s Submissions:

• The State did not present any specific arguments, as neither the complainant nor the victim appeared before the Court despite receiving notice.

Analysis of Arguments:

The appellant’s primary argument was based on the legal exception provided under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which exempts sexual intercourse between a husband and wife from the definition of rape. The appellant also pointed out the inconsistencies in the victim’s statements and her failure to contest the marriage or the absence of rape allegations in her written statement in the restitution of conjugal rights case. The State did not counter the appellant’s submissions, implying that they did not have a strong case against him.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue addressed by the court was:

1. Whether the charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is sustainable against the appellant, given that he is the legally wedded husband of the victim.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The court specifically referred to Exception 2, which states that sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife is not rape.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860*: The Court relied on Exception 2 of this section, which states that “Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape,” to conclude that the charge of rape was not sustainable.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the legal provision of Exception 2 under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which explicitly excludes sexual intercourse between a husband and wife from the definition of rape. The court also took into account the fact that the victim had not made any allegations of rape in her written statement in the restitution of conjugal rights case, and the High Court’s earlier order which indicated that the marriage was consensual. Additionally, the fact that the victim and the complainant did not appear before the court despite being served notice weighed heavily in favor of the appellant.

Logical Reasoning:

The court’s reasoning was based on a straightforward application of the law. It considered the legal exception, the inconsistencies in the victim’s statements, and the lack of response from the victim and complainant. The court found no prima facie case against the appellant warranting a trial.

The court stated, “it is evident that no prima facie case constituting any offence is made out against the appellant and he is entitled to the relief sought.”

Further, the court noted, “sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife cannot be termed as rape and, hence, a charge under Section 376 of IPC cannot be sustained against the appellant.”

The court also observed, “the conduct of the Respondent No. 2 and 3 in failing to enter appearance despite sufficient notice is reflective of the fact that it is a dead case where no purpose shall be served in continuing the criminal proceedings alleging charges of rape against the appellant.”

Key Takeaways

• A husband cannot be charged with rape for sexual intercourse with his wife, as per Exception 2 of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Inconsistencies in statements and non-appearance of the complainant/victim can weaken the prosecution’s case.
• The court will consider prior orders and evidence of consensual marriage when deciding on charges of rape.
• The case highlights the limitations of the law in addressing marital rape within the current legal framework.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR No. 148 of 2022 dated 14.06.2022 filed before the P.S. Model Town, Hoshiarpur, Punjab against the appellant and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a husband cannot be charged with rape for sexual intercourse with his wife, given the explicit exception provided under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position on marital rape in India.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order and quashing the FIR against the appellant. The decision underscores that under the current legal framework, a husband cannot be prosecuted for rape against his wife, as it is explicitly excluded under Exception 2 of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court also considered the inconsistencies in the victim’s statements and her failure to appear before the court, which further supported the appellant’s case.