Supreme Court decriminalised all consensual sex among adults in private including homosexual sex

We hold and declare that:

(i) Section 377 of the Penal Code, in so far as it criminalises consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex, is unconstitutional;

(ii) Members of the LGBT community are entitled, as all other citizens, to the full range of constitutional rights including the liberties protected by the Constitution;

(iii) The choice of whom to partner, the ability to find fulfilment in sexual intimacies and the right not to be subjected to discriminatory behaviour are intrinsic to the constitutional protection of sexual orientation;

(iv) Members of the LGBT community are entitled to the benefit of an equal citizenship, without discrimination, and to the equal protection of law; and

(v) The decision in Koushal stands overruled.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 76 of 2016, 

Decided On: 06.09.2018

 Navtej Singh Johar  Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

Print Page

Whether wife can prosecute husband if he is keeping unnatural sexual relationship with adult male?

The complainant has grievance against her husband,
who is a gay and kept sexual relations with male friends i.e., the
petitioner. The Supreme court in the case of Navtej Singh Johar &
Ors. vs. Union of India 1 W.P. (Cri.) Nbo.76 of 2016 & Others decided on 6.9.2018 has held section 377 of the Indian Penal
Code insofar as it criminalises consensual sexual conduct between
the adult of same sex, as unconsitutional. In the present case,
both were having an extra marital consensual sexual relationship.
Though it may be a ground for divorce on the ground of cruelty to
the complainant, it does not constitute offence under section 377
because both are adults and had sexual relationship by consent. In
this case, there is no victim. The complainant wife is an aggrieved
person but she cannot be called as a victim under section 377 of


the Indian Penal Code.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4470 OF 2012

Daniel Crasto Vs. The State of Maharashtra 

CORAM: Mrs.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.
DATED: JANUARY 30, 2019

Print Page

Whether it can be presumed that accused is unable to commit unnatural offence if potency report is not produced?

PW-13, Ramnath, Investigation Officer has stated
that he got conducted the potency test of accusedpersons.
Though the prosecution has not produced and
proved the report of potency test of the accusedpersons
but only because of non-production of the test
reports it cannot be presumed that accused-appellants
are unfit to commit the offence of Section 377 of IPC.
To our mind, the above circumstance goes against the
accused-appellants.
IN THE HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 72/2011

Mohammad Arsad @ Layak V State of Rajasthan


PRESENT
MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI
 MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI
Citation:2017 CRLJ 684 Raj

Print Page