Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Chapter VII: Of the Burden of Proof
Section 114A: Presumption as to absence of consent in certain prosecution for rape
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
In a prosecution for aggravated rape under clauses (a) to (n) of sub-section (2) of section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the woman states in evidence that she did not consent, the court must presume she did not consent.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
In a prosecution for rape under clause (a), clause (b), clause (c), clause (d), clause (e), clause (f), clause (g), clause (h), clause (i), clause (j), clause (k), clause (l), clause (m) or clause (n) of sub-section (2) of section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of the woman alleged to have been raped and such woman states in her evidence before the court that she did not consent, the court shall presume that she did not consent.
Explanation.––In this section, “sexual intercourse” shall mean any of the acts mentioned in clauses
(a) to (d) of section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).]
State amendments to this section
Chhattisgarh: Insertion of new Section 114B.––After section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, the following shall be inserted, namely:–– 114B. Presumption as to offences committed under section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 509, section 509A or section 509B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. When the question is whether a person has committed an offence under Section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 509, section 509A, or section 509B of the Indian Penal Code and if the victim deposes before the court that she has been subjected to sexual harassment or her modesty was outraged or she was disrobed or she was stalked or her privacy was intruded or she was sexually harassed by any means, as the case may be, the court may, unless contrary is proved, presume that such offence has been committed by that person. [Vide Chhattisgarh Act 25 of 2015, s. 14.]
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 114A
-
Raju @ Umakant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 366, 376(2)(g) and 342, Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v), Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is justified.
- Ram Milan v. Govt. of National Capital & Anr
- Rishabh Rawat v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
- Naim Ahamed v. State (Nct of Delhi)
- Ms. P Xxx v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr
- Prasad @ Santosh Kumar v. The State of Bihar
- Miss Xyz v. State of Gujarat & Anr
- Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecological Societies of India (Fogsi) v. Union of India and Others
- Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh
- Md.All @ Guddu v. State of U.P.
- Munna v. State of M.P.
- Puran Chand v. State of H.P.
- Mohd. Haroon & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
- State of Rajasthan v. Roshan Khan & Ors.
- Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana
- Mohan Lal & Anr v. State of Punjab
- Rajesh Patel v. State of Jharkhand
- Vijay @ Chinee v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Rajoo & Ors. v. State of M.P
- Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar v. State of Bihar
- Bhupinder Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh
- State of Himachal Pradesh v. Lekh Raj and Anr.
- Gagan Bihari Samal and Anr v. State of Orissa