Conviction Under Section 497 IPC Vacated Following Declaration of its Unconstitutionality with Retrospective Effect

The Appellant and his wife were tenants in the house of the prosecutrix.

The prosecution alleged that in November 2006, the Appellant’s wife drugged the prosecutrix, enabling the Appellant to rape her.

It was further alleged that the Appellant continued the sexual relationship through extortion and threats involving nude videos.

Conversely, the Appellant’s version was that the prosecutrix invited him to impregnate her because her husband was infertile—an arrangement likened by the Court to the ancient ‘Niyog Pratha’—and that the dispute arose over financial demands.

The trial court acquitted both the Appellant and his wife of rape (Section 376 IPC) and extortion (Section 384 IPC), but convicted the Appellant under Section 497 IPC (Adultery), sentencing him to three years of rigorous imprisonment.

The Appellant challenged this conviction on the ground that the provision has been struck down by the Supreme Court.

The court primarily applied the precedent set in Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 39, which declared Section 497 IPC unconstitutional for violating Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

It further relied on Ashok Kumar Singh v. State (2025) SCC OnLine Del 2456 to establish that this declaration of unconstitutionality has retrospective effect.

Additionally, the court noted that under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the law laid down by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts in India.

The Court observed that the trial court had acquitted the Appellant of the primary charges of rape and extortion but had convicted him for adultery under Section 497 IPC.

However, the legal landscape shifted during the pendency of the matter due to the Supreme Court's ruling in Joseph Shine, which struck down the offence of adultery as ultra vires to the Constitution.

The Court reasoned that since Section 497 IPC is no longer part of the statute, it cannot serve as a valid basis to punish any individual.

Furthermore, citing Ashok Kumar Singh, the Court clarified that the invalidation of the section applies retrospectively, thereby encompassing the present appeal and rendering the lower court’s conviction legally unsustainable.

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of conviction, and acquitted the Appellant.

The Appellant’s bail bonds were discharged, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.