Court Emphasizes Need for Expert Evidence to Establish Lack of Consent in Cases Involving Intellectual Disability
In a significant judgment, the Gauhati High Court has overturned the conviction of Sh. P. Rohmingsanga, who was previously sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment for the alleged rape of a mentally disabled woman. The case centered around the accused's sexual intercourse with a 24-year-old woman with mild intellectual disability, whose mental age was assessed to be equivalent to that of an 8-year-old child.
The prosecution had initially argued that the victim's mental incapacity rendered her unable to provide valid consent, thus constituting rape under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the Court, presided over by Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, found that the prosecution failed to provide concrete expert evidence to support the claim that the victim was incapable of understanding the nature of the act.
The judgment highlighted the necessity for specific expert testimony to establish the victim's incapacity to consent, emphasizing that psychological assessments alone, without clear evidence of the victim's understanding, are insufficient. The Court noted that an adult with intellectual disabilities cannot be automatically equated with a child of similar mental age due to differences in lived experiences and exposure.
Moreover, the Court identified procedural lapses in the recording of the victim's statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). It noted that mandatory provisions, such as the engagement of an interpreter or special educator and videography of the statement, were not followed, rendering the statement inadmissible as substantive evidence.
The absence of a clear statement from the victim indicating lack of consent led the Court to conclude that the presumption of absence of consent under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act could not be applied.
Additionally, the Court referred to the victim's ability to manage a shop and her educational background as indicative of her capacity to understand the act, further questioning the prosecution's stance on her incapacity.
In light of these findings, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the previous conviction and sentence, ordering the immediate release of the appellant. The judgment underscores the complexities involved in cases of sexual offenses against individuals with intellectual disabilities and the need for meticulous legal and evidentiary standards to ensure justice.
Bottom line:-
Mental disability and its impact on consent - A 24-year-old victim with mild intellectual disability assessed to have a mental age of 8 years does not automatically equate to an actual 8-year-old child. Specific evidence of her ability to understand the nature of the act is required to establish lack of consent under Section 375 IPC.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 375 and Section 376, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 164(5A), Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 114A
Sh. P. Rohmingsanga v. State of Mizoram, (Gauhati) : Law Finder Doc id # 2960397
