Unnatural Offence Submi

Topic - Unnatural Offences Unnatural offences is a type of abnormal sexual offences which also known as unnatural nature that can be found under sections 377 of the penal Code. Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years and shall also be liable to fine or  whipping. The ambit of Section 377, which was devised to criminalize and prevent homosexual associations, sodomy in particular, extends to any sexual union involving penile insertion. Thus even consensual heterosexual acts such as fellatio and digital penetration may be a punishable offense under this law. The extraction of sections 377 are as follows: First, when there was a voluntarily act of having carnal intercourse with an animal or  buggery with an animal. Buggery which is also defined as sodomy in this section explained that the act of having sexual intercourse between a person and an animal is considered as abnormal. The word „animal‟ is explained in section 47 as l iving creature other than human being. Case??  The provision to section 377 explains that penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence. Second, the carnal intercourse against the order of the nature which also can be explain as when there was a voluntarily act of having sexual connection with another person by the introduction of the penis into the anus or mouth of the other person. The offence can be found stated in section 377A of the penal code. The explanation of section 377A further states that penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual connection necessary to the offence. The way of  the carnal intercourse can be considered against the order of nature is when: a) There is an act of the introduction of the penis into the anus whether male or female b) Fellatio which is sexual activity involving oral contact with the male genitals Section 377D provides for the enhanced punishment when the carnal intercourse against the order of nature committed on the other perso n is without that person‟s consent, or  against the will of the other person, or by putting the other person in fear of death or hurt to that person. Case??  Anwar Ibrahim?? Third, the acts of gross indecency. Gross indecency means offending against recognized standards of decency. Since there is already provision for criminal liability in respect of acts of carnal intercourse against the order of nature, gross indecency would appear to apply to acts which other than such carnal intercourse. The offence can be indecent by, where in

public or private, committing or abeting the commission or attempts to procure the commission by any person of any act of gross indecency with any person under section 377D and, the acts of inciting a child under the age of 14 years to any act of gross indecency with him or any other  person under section 377E.  – the end.

Some authorities that I’ve found –

up to u nak fill in ye, tqs!

The Judgment delivered by the Delhi high Court has very nicely analyzed as to how the unnatural offences as perused under section 377 of IPC has undergone undergone change from nonprocreative to imitative to sexual perversities. Thus we find that in Khanu v. Emperor, AIR 1925 Sind 286, Kennedy A.J.C. held that “se ction 377 IPC punishes certain persons who have carnal intercourse intercour se against the order of nature with inter alia human beings.... [if the oral sex committed in this case is carnal intercourse], it is clearly against the order of nature, because the natural object of carnal intercourse is that there should be the possibility of conception of human beings, which in the case of coitus per os is impossible.” Thus here we find fi nd that purpose of  sex is procreation and any sex which does not lead to procreation is illegal. Moving further In Lohana Vasantlal Devchand v. State, AIR 1968 Guj 252, the issue was whether oral sex amounted to an offence under Section 377 IPC. It was held that the “orifice of the mouth is not, according to nature, meant for sexual or carnal intercourse.” Moving further in the case of Fazal Rab Choudhary v. State of Bihar, AIR AIR 1983 SC 323; it was observed that Section 377 IPC implied “sexual perversity”. However, it is noteworthy that courts had earlier held in R. V. Jacobs (1817) Russ & Ry 331 C.C.R., and Govindarajula In re., (1886) 1 Weir 382, that inserting the penis in the mouth would not amount to an offence under Section 377 IPC.