The Gauhati High Court has ruled that an adult woman’s mental disability or an assessment of her “mental age” cannot, by itself, establish that she lacked the capacity to give valid consent to sexual intercourse. The Court stressed that such a conclusion must be supported by specific and reliable expert evidence concerning the woman’s ability to understand the nature and consequences of the sexual act.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma made the observation while allowing a criminal appeal filed against a conviction under Section 376(2)(l) of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court had sentenced the appellant to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment in connection with an allegation of sexual intercourse with an adult woman described by the prosecution as suffering from mental disability.
The appellant did not dispute that sexual intercourse had taken place on one occasion but maintained that the relationship was consensual. The prosecution, however, argued that the woman was incapable of giving legally valid consent because of her mental condition and relied upon the disability-related evidence placed before the trial court.
The High Court found significant shortcomings in the prosecution’s evidence. Although disability certificates had been produced and a clinical psychologist had been examined, the evidence did not specifically establish whether the woman understood the nature of the sexual act or possessed the capacity to make an informed decision regarding consent.
The Court also noted that the doctors who had issued the disability certificates were not examined to explain the implications of their findings. Further, the clinical psychologist did not provide evidence addressing the woman’s ability to comprehend the nature and consequences of sexual activity. The psychological assessment itself had been conducted almost two years after the alleged incident.
The Court emphasised that an adult assessed as having a mental age substantially below her chronological age cannot automatically be treated in law as equivalent to a child of that mental age. According to the Court, an adult also possesses years of lived experience, social exposure and emotional development, factors that cannot simply be disregarded on the basis of a psychological score.
Justice Sharma further underlined that sexual autonomy is an important individual right and cannot be taken away merely on the basis of assumptions drawn from abstract psychological assessments. In a case where incapacity to consent is alleged, the prosecution must produce appropriate expert evidence demonstrating that the woman was actually incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of the act.
The High Court also examined the manner in which the woman’s statement had been recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It observed that the statutory safeguards applicable to recording the statement of a person with a mental or physical disability had not been demonstrated to have been followed. There was no indication that an interpreter or special educator had been engaged, that the statement had been videographed, or that the Magistrate had undertaken an assessment of her competence to testify.
The Court held that the statutory requirements governing such a statement assume particular importance when the statement is sought to be relied upon as substantive evidence in place of examination-in-chief. In the absence of compliance with those safeguards, the statement could not be treated as substantive evidence in the manner contemplated by law.
The High Court consequently found that the prosecution had failed to establish the absence of consent through legally admissible evidence. It also held that the presumption under Section 114A of the Evidence Act could not be invoked in the circumstances because there was no substantive statement from the woman before the court asserting that she had not consented.
Holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the case through legally admissible evidence, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence and allowed the appeal. The appellant was directed to be released forthwith.
The judgment, reiterates that mental disability and incapacity to consent are not legally interchangeable concepts. The decisive question must be whether the evidence establishes that the individual was incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of the sexual act and, therefore, of giving valid consent.
The post Gauhati High Court: Mental disability alone cannot prove inability to consent, Rape conviction set aside appeared first on India Legal.