Gauhati High Court Acquits Rape Convict, Rules Intellectual Disability Does Not Automatically Imply Lack of Sexual Capacity

The Gauhati High Court has set aside the conviction of a man accused of raping a 24-year-old woman with an intellectual disability, ruling that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient expert evidence to prove the victim was incapable of understanding the nature of sexual intercourse or providing valid consent.

Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, presiding over the appeal filed by P. Rohmingsanga, overturned the June 18, 2024, judgment by the Lunglei Sessions Court, which had initially sentenced the accused to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

The Court’s Stance on "Mental Age"

In a significant legal observation, the High Court challenged the common reliance on psychometric testing in criminal proceedings. The Court explicitly cautioned that a 24-year-old woman assessed with the "mental age" of an 8 or 9-year-old child cannot be treated as a minor.

"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 Bench stated. The Court emphasized that an adult’s sexual autonomy is a fundamental right that cannot be stripped away based on "vague presumptions" derived from abstract psychological scores without evidence regarding her actual capacity to comprehend sexual acts.

Evidentiary Lapses

The prosecution’s case relied heavily on disability certificates indicating a 40–50% intellectual disability and an assessment by a clinical psychologist. However, the High Court identified critical flaws in the prosecution’s approach:

• Lack of Expert Clarification: The authorities who issued the disability certificates were never examined to explain what, if any, impact the disability had on the victim’s ability to consent.
• Procedural Non-Compliance: The victim’s statement, recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), was treated as evidence-in-chief without adhering to mandatory safeguards. Under Section 164(5A) CrPC, statements from individuals with mental disabilities require the assistance of an interpreter or special educator and must be videographed—conditions that were not met in this instance.

Absence of Consent Not Established

Because the mandatory protocols for the victim’s statement were ignored, the High Court ruled there was no substantive testimony from the victim to prove that the encounter was non-consensual. Consequently, the Court held that the legal presumption under Section 114A of the Evidence Act—which shifts the burden of proof in certain rape cases—could not be invoked.

The Court distinguished this case from the Supreme Court precedent in Chamanlal v. State of Himachal Pradesh, noting that in Chamanlal, there was specific medical testimony confirming that the victim could not comprehend the nature of the assault. In the present case, no such specific expert opinion was provided.

Finding that the prosecution failed to present legally admissible evidence, the Gauhati High Court acquitted P. Rohmingsanga and ordered his immediate release.