There Were Financial Transactions And Compromise Between Couple: Supreme Court While Suspending Sentence Of Husband Convicted Under Section 377 IPC

The Supreme Court, on Monday, suspended the sentence of a man accused of unnatural, non-consensual sex with his wife and granted him bail in the case. The husband was initially charged with offences under Sections 376 and 498A of IPC, but convicted only for the offences under Sections 377 and 323 IPC. In his appeal, the High Court refused to suspend his sentence, which was challenged before the Apex Court. 

The Bench of Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar noted that there were certain financial transactions between the couple and observed that the parties had entered into a settlement.

"What persuades us to consider the prayer is that, as already noted, the appellant and the respondent are husband and wife and even, at this moment, if we do not accept the settlement entered into between the parties, the fact remains that certain financial transactions were also involved, and these are aspects which would be looked into subsequently," the Court said. 

The Bench remarked that despite not accepting the settlement, the financial transactions between the husband and wife warranted consideration. The Court emphasized that the case involved the husband of the complainant, not a hardened criminal.

"In a matter of the present nature, as we are not considering the suspension of sentence of a hardened criminal but, as already indicated, the appellant is the husband of the respondent, we deem it appropriate that the balance would tilt in favour of the appellant for grant of the prayer, the Court said. 

The Sessions Court had acquitted the husband of rape and cruelty to his wife but upheld his conviction for unnatural sex under Section 377 IPC and for voluntarily causing hurt. However, the Chhattisgarh High Court had declined to suspend his sentence and grant interim bail, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Granting the relief sought, the Supreme Court took note of the compromise between the parties and the financial transactions involved. The bail was granted subject to the terms and conditions of the trial court.

"In that view, we order that the sentence imposed through the judgment dated 23.12.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge shall remain suspended and the appellant shall be enlarged on bail subject to appropriate conditions being imposed by the trial court. For the purpose of imposing such conditions and for issuance of release order, the appellant shall be produced forthwith before the trial court," the Court ordered.

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the Appeal. 

Cause Title: X v. Y

Appearance:-

Appellant: Senior Advocates Mukul Rohtagi, Sidharth Luthra, Advocates Zulfiquar Memon, Parvez Memon, Vivek Jain, Mrinal Bharti, Swapnil Srivastava, Kush Agarwal, Manish Shekhari, Jayesh Srivastava, Sanjana Srivastava

Respondent: Senior Advocate Gagan Gupta, Advocates Apoorva Bhumesh, Madhavi Khare, Prashant Singh, Prerna Dhall, Piyush Yadav

Click here to read/download the Order