Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Justice Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan Krishna held that “Unless there is a specific legislative provision which puts a negative burden on the accused, there is no burden on the accused to lead evidence for proving his innocence. The accused may have some burden to discharge in case of a statutory prescription, such as Section 114A of the Evidence Act. In this case, the burden was on the prosecution to lead evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt”.

• The Supreme Court heard this in the case Pankaj Singh v. State of Haryana.

What is the Background of Pankaj Singh v. State of Haryana?

• The trial court convicted the appellant-accused under Sections 342, 376, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,00/- for the offence under Section 376.
• Charges were also framed for other offences, but the trial court acquitted the appellant-accused.
• Both the appellant-accused and the Prosecutrix were married, and the incident occurred when the Prosecutrix was 28 years old.
• Allegedly, the appellant-accused forcibly had intercourse with the Prosecutrix, threatening to disclose objectionable photographs.
• The court emphasized that minor contradictions in the victim's testimony should not undermine its credibility.
• The defence claimed the relationship was consensual and sought to discredit the Prosecutrix's evidence.
• However, the state supported the Prosecutrix's account, relying on WhatsApp conversations and legal presumptions.
• No interference was deemed necessary by the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The court said that “Therefore, on the face of it, the presumption under Section 114A of the Evidence Act will not apply, and, therefore, the burden will be on the prosecution to prove that the sexual intercourse was without the consent of the Prosecutrix”.

What is Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?

Presumption as to absence of consent in certain prosecution for rape

• 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 IPC, 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 IPC.