The Gauhati High Court has acquitted a man convicted of raping a 24-year-old woman with intellectual disability, holding that the prosecution failed to produce specific expert evidence showing that her condition rendered her incapable of understanding the nature of sexual intercourse or giving valid consent. The Court also found that the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC could not be treated as her examination-in-chief because mandatory safeguards applicable to a mentally disabled victim had not been followed.Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma allowed the appeal filed by P. Rohmingsanga and set aside the judgment dated June 18, 2024, by which the Sessions Court, Lunglei Judicial District, had convicted him under Section 376(2)(l) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹3,000.The High Court held that the existence of an intellectual disability could not, by itself, establish that an adult woman lacked the capacity to understand the sexual act or give valid consent. It also emphasised that the question had to be determined on evidence addressing the victim’s actual capacity rather than merely on disability percentages or psychological scores.The Court cautioned:“A 24 year old woman assessed to have a mental age of 8/9 years cannot be straightaway equated with an actual 8/9 years old girl.”The prosecution case arose from an alleged incident of sexual intercourse between the accused and the victim on 09.05.2022 at a shop near her residence. According to the victim’s mother, she came to know about the incident through her niece. She thereafter questioned the victim, who allegedly told her that the accused had come to the shop between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon and had sexual intercourse with her. During the same conversation, the victim allegedly disclosed two earlier incidents involving the accused, one near Indra Middle School and another at his residence.The matter was not immediately reported to the police. According to the prosecution case, the Baptist Church Mission of Electric ‘North’, Hnahthial, subsequently revoked the accused’s ordination as a Church Elder. The family did not lodge an FIR at that stage. Thereafter, the complainant received a notice from the accused through his advocate, Mr. Laldinsanga. It was after receiving this notice that the complainant approached the police. The FIR was registered on 22.07.2022, alleging an offence under Section 376(2)(l) IPC in relation to the incident of 09.05.2022.The case proceeded to trial, during which the prosecution examined seven witnesses. The Sessions Court ultimately convicted the accused under Section 376(2)(l) IPC and sentenced him to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹3,000.The accused thereafter challenged the conviction before the Gauhati High Court.Prosecution Relied on Disability CertificatesA central issue before the High Court was whether the evidence established that the victim’s intellectual disability affected her ability to understand the nature of the sexual act and give valid consent.The prosecution relied on two disability certificates. A certificate issued in 2009 recorded 40% mental disability, while another certificate issued in 2021 also recorded 40% mental disability.The prosecution also examined Clinical Psychologist Jacob Challiandinga, who assessed the victim on 23.04.2024. His assessment recorded a mental age of 8 years and 8 months, an IQ of 63 and a social age of 9 years. His final impression was mild intellectual disability with 50% disability.However, the High Court found a significant evidentiary gap. The doctors or authorities who had issued the earlier disability certificates were not examined to explain what the recorded disability meant for the victim’s ability to understand sexual intercourse or give valid consent.The clinical psychologist who conducted the later assessment also did not offer an opinion on that specific question. The Court therefore held that specific expert evidence regarding the victim’s capacity was necessary.Accused Admitted Intercourse But Claimed It Was ConsensualThe accused did not completely deny having sexual intercourse with the victim. His case was that intercourse had taken place on one occasion but was consensual. His counsel argued that the victim was an adult woman who was 24 years old at the relevant time. She ran a small shop and had studied up to Class XII under the disabled quota.The defence submitted that these circumstances could not simply be ignored by treating her intellectual disability as proof that she was incapable of understanding the nature of the act. Counsel also relied upon portions of the victim’s deposition concerning her interactions with the accused, including her statements that she had gone to his house and to the school where he worked after he called her.The prosecution opposed the appeal, submitting that the victim’s mental disability had been established and that the accused himself had admitted sexual intercourse with her. According to the prosecution, her mental condition rendered her incapable of giving valid consent and the admitted sexual act therefore constituted rape under Section 375 IPC.The prosecution also relied upon Section 114A of the Evidence Act, asserting that once sexual intercourse was proved and absence of consent established, the statutory presumption would operate in favour of the victim.The High Court therefore examined whether the evidence actually established the victim’s incapacity to understand the sexual act or give valid consent.Mental Age Cannot Be Equated With Chronological AgeThe High Court cautioned against treating the victim’s assessed mental age as equivalent to that of an actual child of the same mental age. The Bench noted that the victim was a 24-year-old woman with 24 years of lived experience, physical development and exposure to the adult social environment. The Court also emphasised the importance of sexual autonomy, observing that such autonomy could not be taken away merely on the basis of psychological scores.It held:“Such right of the individual cannot be stripped away merely on vague presumptions based on some abstract scores or numbers generated by psychological tests.”The Court accordingly held that the prosecution had to produce specific expert evidence explaining whether the victim’s intellectual disability actually prevented her from understanding the nature and consequences of the sexual act.The Bench also noted that the psychological assessment relied upon by the prosecution was conducted on 23.04.2024, nearly two years after the alleged incident.Section 164 Statement Recorded Without Mandatory SafeguardsThe High Court then examined the manner in which the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC had been recorded.When the victim appeared before the Trial Court on 24.04.2023, the Court read over her earlier statement under Section 164 CrPC to her. She accepted the statement as correct and true, following which cross-examination commenced.However, no separate examination-in-chief was recorded.The High Court noted that the Trial Court had apparently treated the Section 164 statement as the victim’s examination-in-chief under Section 164(5A)(b) CrPC.That provision contains special safeguards for recording the statement of a person who is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled. The Magistrate is required to take the assistance of an interpreter or special educator, and the statement is also required to be videographed. Neither requirement was followed in the present case.The High Court further found that there was nothing on record to indicate that the Magistrate had proceeded under Section 164(5A) while recording the victim’s statement.The Court held:“If the statement of the victim is to be regarded as one under sub-section 5 A of Section 164 CrPC, the condition stipulated in the provisions thereto must be strictly followed.”No Substantive Evidence From Victim To Establish Lack Of ConsentThe failure to comply with Section 164(5A) had a direct consequence for the prosecution case.The High Court held that the victim had neither been examined-in-chief before the Trial Court nor was her Section 164 statement capable of being treated as her examination-in-chief under Section 164(5A)(b), since the statutory requirements had not been satisfied.The Bench observed:“There is no substantive evidence of the victim herself on record, either by way of examination-in-chief or a prior statement admissible under Section 164 (5A)(a)(b) CrPC in lieu of examination-in-chief.”The Court therefore found that the prosecution had failed to establish absence of consent through substantive evidence from the victim herself.Section 114A Presumption Could Not Be InvokedThe prosecution’s reliance on Section 114A of the Evidence Act also failed.The High Court noted that the statutory presumption requires the woman to state before the Court that she did not consent. Since the victim had not given examination-in-chief and her Section 164 statement could not be treated as evidence in lieu of examination-in-chief under Section 164(5A)(b), there was no such statement before the Court capable of triggering the presumption.The Bench held:“Consequently, Section 114A of the Evidence Act has no application herein.”The High Court also examined the evidence concerning the other alleged incidents.The victim’s mother admitted that the first two alleged incidents had not been disclosed to the family before the third incident.During her deposition, the victim stated that she had entered the accused’s house after he called her and had gone to the school where he worked because he had called her. She also stated that she did not remember whether she had protested before the accused had sexual intercourse with her below the school.The Court held that, in the absence of proof of mental incapacity, these circumstances would be suggestive of consent.The Bench also considered the evidence of another prosecution witness who claimed to have heard the victim objecting to the sexual act. However, the witness had not seen the alleged sexual act.The Court found this evidence insufficient to overcome the prosecution’s failure to establish the victim’s mental incapacity and absence of consent through legally admissible evidence.The prosecution relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Chamanlal v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 17 SCC 69, where the conviction of an accused for rape of a woman with intellectual disability had been upheld.The Gauhati High Court distinguished that decision on the evidence available in the two cases.In Chamanlal, the Supreme Court had considered specific medical evidence from doctors who had examined the victim and had concluded that her intellectual condition prevented her from understanding the good and bad aspects of the sexual assault. There was also evidence that the accused had taken advantage of her mental condition.In the present case, by contrast, the doctors who issued the earlier disability certificates were not examined regarding the implications of the victim’s condition. The clinical psychologist who assessed her in 2024 also did not give an opinion regarding her capacity to understand the sexual act. The High Court therefore found that Chamanlal did not assist the prosecution.Considering the evidence as a whole, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge through legally admissible evidence.The Court held:“The case of the prosecution has not been proved by the legally admissible evidence and hence the impugned Judgment & Sentence cannot be sustained.”The High Court accordingly allowed the appeal, set aside the Sessions Court’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and directed that P. Rohmingsanga be set at liberty forthwith.Crl.A./36/2024R v. The State of Mizoram r/b Secretary to Govt. of Mizoram, Home Dept. and Anr. AizawlDate of Decision: 31.07.2026Appearance:Advocate for the petitioner: Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu, Adv Advocates for the respondents: Mrs. Vanneihsiami, PP Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai, R 2(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)
