Presumptions Relating To Sexual Offences
Legal Framework
Under Indian law, sexual offences are governed primarily by the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Key Sections involving presumptions:
Section 114A, Indian Evidence Act (IEA): Presumption as to absence of consent in certain sexual offences.
Section 53A, IPC (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act - POCSO): Presumption that child below 18 years cannot consent.
Section 29, POCSO Act: Presumption that sexual intercourse with a child is without consent.
Section 375, IPC: Defines rape and includes the aspect of consent.
What are Presumptions in Sexual Offences?
Presumptions in the context of sexual offences mean that the court assumes certain facts are true unless the accused can provide sufficient evidence to the contrary. These presumptions help protect victims, especially in cases where evidence is primarily testimonial or circumstantial.
Important Presumptions in Sexual Offences:
Presumption of No Consent (Section 114A, IEA):
When sexual intercourse is proved, and the victim states that consent was absent, the court shall presume no consent, unless proved otherwise.
Presumption that Child Cannot Consent (POCSO Act):
A child under 18 cannot legally give consent to sexual acts.
Presumption against the Accused in Sexual Harassment Cases:
Courts may draw adverse inferences if the accused fails to rebut presumption of guilt.
Important Case Laws on Presumptions in Sexual Offences
1. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) – Supreme Court
Facts: A woman was gang-raped; accused denied the allegations.
Issue: The standard of proof and presumption of consent.
Ruling: Court held that consent is the cornerstone in rape cases and absence of consent must be clearly established.
Principle: Section 114A applies — if victim says no consent, the court must presume absence of consent.
Significance: Reinforced presumption of no consent in rape cases once victim states absence of consent.
2. B.K. Pavitra v. State of Karnataka (2019)
Facts: Case involving sexual harassment allegations.
Issue: Whether failure to rebut presumption under Section 114A affects the accused.
Ruling: Court ruled that presumption of no consent stands unless rebutted by credible evidence.
Principle: Burden on accused to prove consent or absence of coercion.
Significance: Strengthened victim protection in sexual offences.
3. State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash (2014)
Facts: Sexual assault on a minor.
Issue: Application of POCSO Act’s presumption that child cannot consent.
Ruling: Court held that a child below 18 cannot consent and any sexual act with them is presumed non-consensual.
Principle: Strict application of POCSO provisions for child protection.
Significance: Affirmed strict presumption protecting minors from sexual offences.
4. Tukaram S. Dighole v. State of Maharashtra (2010)
Facts: Case of alleged sexual assault.
Issue: Credibility of victim’s testimony and application of presumptions.
Ruling: Court stressed presumption in favor of victim when testimony is consistent and corroborated.
Principle: Victim’s testimony needs careful consideration; presumption favors protection of victim.
Significance: Emphasized courts must guard against victim-blaming.
5. Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001)
Facts: Alleged rape; accused claimed consent.
Issue: Whether consent can be presumed from circumstances.
Ruling: Court clarified that consent must be voluntary and unequivocal; mere silence or no resistance does not imply consent.
Principle: Presumption of no consent unless proven otherwise.
Significance: Clarified that absence of resistance does not mean consent.
6. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sanjay Kumar (2010)
Facts: Sexual assault case with delay in lodging FIR.
Issue: Effect of delay and presumption of guilt.
Ruling: Court held delay does not weaken presumption of guilt if victim’s testimony is credible.
Principle: Delay cannot be a reason to discredit victim when presumption applies.
Significance: Strengthened victim’s position despite procedural delays.
7. Lillu @ Rajesh v. State of Haryana (2011)
Facts: Minor girl subjected to sexual assault.
Issue: Presumption under POCSO Act.
Ruling: Court reiterated child below 18 cannot consent; any sexual intercourse is rape.
Principle: Absolute presumption of no consent for minors.
Significance: Reinforced child protection laws.
Summary of Key Points
Section 114A of Evidence Act creates a presumption of absence of consent in sexual offences.
POCSO Act creates irrebuttable presumption that children cannot consent.
Courts give greater weight to victim’s testimony due to the nature of sexual crimes.
Accused has the burden to rebut presumption with credible evidence.
Delay in reporting or lack of physical evidence does not weaken presumption if victim’s testimony is reliable.
Consent must be voluntary, explicit, and unequivocal.
RELATED Blog
0 comments