WHETHER THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF

OKLAHOMA WAS REASONABLE AND JUSTIFIED WHILE ACQUITTING THE

ACCUSED PERSON(S) UNDER SECTION 377 OF THE OKLAHOMA PENAL CODE,
1860?

Yes, the impugned judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Oklahoma was reasonable and justified
while acquitting the accused person(S) under section 377 of the OPC, 1860. In the facts of the
case it is mentioned that the Hon'ble High Court of Oklahoma acquitted the accused person(S) on
the ground of lack of evidence i.e. because of the section 53 (1) of the Cr. Pc. which says- When
a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence of such a nature and alleged to have
been committed under such circumstances that there are reasonable grounds for believing that an
examination of his person will afford evidence as to the commission of an offence, it shall be
lawful for a registered medical practitioner, acting at the request of a police officer not below the
rank of sub- inspector, and for any person acting in good faith in his aid and under his direction,
to make such an examination of the person arrested as is reasonably necessary in order to
ascertain the facts which may afford such evidence, and to use such force as is reasonably for
that purpose.1 also in section 232 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it states  Acquittal. If, after
taking the evidence for the prosecution, examining the accused and hearing the prosecution and
the defence on the point, the Judge considers that there is no evidence that the accused
committed the offence, the Judge shall record an order of acquittal.2

As per the section 53 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code it is stated the that accused must be
examined after the act but according to the moot proposition, the police official(s) immediately
took an action against Mr. John Bennett and Mr. Rick Haffman on the complaint filed by Ms.
Vanessa J. Adams and sent her for medical examination to the nearest hospital with female
constable. After the medical examination was concluded it was found that she was subjected to
sexual intercourse.3 So, according to the facts only the victim was gone through medical
examination but none of the accused were examined and it can't be verified that both the accused
were indulge in the act.

1
Section 53(1) in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
2
Section 232 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
3
MOOT PROPOSITION
  In Amit v State of UP4, the accused committed unnatural sex with a minor girl of aged 3
years and later killed him. The trial court imposed death penalty for the offence of
murder. But no charges were framed against the accused under sexual harassment.
Because there were no evidences against him that prove that he was indulge in the sexual
act.
Every individual has the right to do what he likes with his body in order to protect and preserve
his health and personal privacy. This is a constitutional right, protected by law. Therefore, any
an assault on the patient. But sometimes, the accused in police custody refuses to medical
examination but the compulsions of law require him to be medically examined. In such cases,
the law allows examination without consent and, if required, allows the use of necessary force
for this purpose.5 But in our case it doesn't lead to this conclusion none of the accused were
examined, either by consent or by force.
Hence, I humbly state the after going through all the case laws, provisions and reports the
impugned judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Oklahoma was reasonable and justified while
acquitting the accused person(S) under section 377 of the OPC, 1860. As there is no strong point
through which the court will be able to verify that the respondent was indulge in the act or not.

WHETHER THE PROVISION(S) RELATED TO SEXUAL OFFENCES IN THE

OKLAHOMA PENAL CODE, 1860 FAILS TO PROTECT THE DIGNITY AND
MODESTY OF TRANS-SEXUAL AND LGBT COMMUNITY?

The provision(S) related to sexual offences in the Oklahoma Penal Code, 1860 fails to protect the
dignity and modesty of trans-sexual and LGBT community. As there are no specific provisions
related to then as well as the society renounces them on the basis of their sexual orientation. It is
further imperative to maintain public health in the general society since homosexual sexual
activities constitute High-Risk Groups (HRGs) among population prone to HIV/AIDS. In fact
various sources shows that there should be no gender neutrality in India as the law govern the
society and they should be framed according to the society, then if the society itself renounces
the third gender then why should OPC, 1860 is supposed to protect the dignity and modesty of
LGBT community.
4
AMIT V STATE OF UP , A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866
5
Sharma, J.. (2002). Medicolegal examination on the accused under Section 53 Cr PC. 19. 23-25.
From childhood we have been instilled by the perspective on how to view the world and people.
This introduces gender bias, stereotypes and stigma created in a society. They seep from well
rooted traditions and culture however, it is important to have an unprejudiced view where legal
matters are concerned. But as far as we talk about the LGBT community and Trans-Sexual
community, the society itself abjures them and later on the generations will also do the same. Let
just come back to the point. Transgender do not necessarily identify themselves as male or
female and thus, third gender has been categorized for them; the law fails to mention them. The
laws themselves form boundaries and can be considered as the basis for these underreported
cases; cases not being reported are directly proportional to no existence of laws. The National
Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) records crimes and provides statistics; however, there can be no
statistics found for rape of men or transgender.6  Third gender is not included in the definition so
they do not even come near the ambit of Law. Albeit these facts have been deeply rooted in
people’s mind and society and it can't be changed. 

“Gender-neutral reforms are not designed to make gender irrelevant in our understanding of
sexual violence; in fact, gender is central to any understanding of how and why sexual violence
occurs. What is clear, however, is that while females are the main victims of sexual violence and
males the main perpetrators, one still has to consider how sexual assaults beyond the male-on-
female paradigm are to be labeled by the criminal law.”7

On the other hand if we assume that there are provisions in the law for the LGBT, then we can
say that the Fundamental Rights given to men and women of the society are also available to the
third gender as well. They have the same Fundamental Rights as to ours and them equally the
beauty of our constitution like Articles 14, 15 and 23 etc. The Court has legally recognized the
third gender as Transgender in both civil as well in criminal status. Now, they have the same
fundamental rights and constitutional provisions as men and women of the society and now they
can enjoy these in the same manner. After the decriminalization of sec. 377 of IPC in the
landmark judgment given by the Top Court in 2018 in the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of

6
National Crime Records Bureau, India, https://ncrb.gov.in/crime-in-india-table-addtional-table-and-chapter-
contents?page=92
7
criminallawstudiesnluj/gender-nutrality/
India8 now they can consensual sex including homosexual sex. Certain bills that gave rights to
Transgender persons are detailed as follows:

THE RIGHTS OF TRANSGENDER PERSON’S BILL, 2014

THE RIGHTS OF TRANSGENDER PERSON’S BILL, 2015

THE TRANSGENDER PERSONS (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS) BILL, 2016:

TRANSGENDER PERSONS (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS) BILL, 2017

But when we look closer then we will have a glance that all these provisions and all these acts
are not enough to protect the sexual violence of transgender as there are no specific laws relating
to LGBT community. Gender specificity cannot be said to serve any objective in sexual
harassment law any more. There is no reason to suspect the pervasiveness of sexual assault
outside the established framework. The LGBT community only consist of 8% of the total
population and major assaults against them are not disclosed, just because there are no laws and
in fact the society itself don't want to give transgender and LGBT a spotlight.

Concluding my point I would like to state that the provision(S) related to sexual offences in the
Oklahoma Penal Code, 1860 fails to protect the dignity and modesty of trans-sexual and
LGBT community. And the moot preposition itself states that the country has rich number of
texts dealing with a number of aspects relating culture, Dharma and Privacy but there are no
effective penal laws for the protection of trans-sexual and LGBT communities’ right(s).9
and hence, it is clear that there are no provision to safeguard the LGBT and there shouldn't be
any provision for them.

8
 Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union of India thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice W. P. (Crl.) No. 76 of
2016.
9
MOOT PROPOSITION