Supreme Court sets aside conviction of man for sexual assault on minor wife

The Supreme Court in a recent Judgement (SIDDARUDA @ KARNA Vs. STATE D.D. 22 Feb 2023) relied on Exception 2 to Section 375 of the IPC and found that the sexual act between the appellant and the prosecutrix, who were husband and wife, and the latter being above 15 years of age, did not amount to rape.

The appellant had been convicted and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, for committing sexual assault on his minor wife in 2012. The High Court of Karnataka had altered his conviction from Section 6 of the POCSO Act to Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and upheld his sentence.

The appellant had challenged his conviction and submitted that he was covered by Exception 2 to Section 375 of the IPC. Exception 2 provides that sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, if she is not under 15 years of age, is not considered rape. The appellant had argued that he had married the prosecutrix, who was above 15 years of age at the time of the incident, and that their relationship was consensual.

The Supreme Court examined the evidence presented and found that the prosecutrix had filed an affidavit stating that she was married to the appellant and that they had a child. The parents of the prosecutrix also did not support the prosecution case. The Court noted that the sexual act in question took place in 2012, before the Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 800 judgment, which had raised the age of consent from 15 years to 18 years in Exception 2.

The Supreme Court relied on Exception 2 to Section 375 of the IPC and found that the sexual act between the appellant and the prosecutrix, who were husband and wife, and the latter being above 15 years of age, did not amount to rape. The Court concluded that the conviction was not sustainable and allowed the appeal. The appellant was acquitted of all charges and directed to be released from custody.

SIDDARUDA @ KARNA Vs. STATE