Consent Of Girl Aged Above 16 Is Legally Valid Under Pre-2013 Law: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Rape Conviction

“Retrospective Application Of 2013 Rape Law Violates Article 20(1)” —Karnataka High Court delivered a pivotal ruling in Kadamban v. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 623 of 2014), setting aside a conviction for kidnapping and rape under Sections 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), holding that the application of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, to an offence committed in 2011 was constitutionally impermissible. Justice G. Basavaraja categorically held that the victim, being above 16 years at the time of the incident, could legally consent under the then-prevailing law, and the trial court had erred in applying the amended provisions retrospectively.

The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had kidnapped the girl or committed rape, emphasizing that the relationship appeared consensual, and that “no presumption of lack of consent can be drawn where charges under Section 376(2) IPC were not framed.”

“A Person Cannot Be Convicted Under A Law That Did Not Exist On The Date Of The Offence” — Article 20(1) Absolute

The High Court addressed a critical constitutional issue: whether the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, which raised the age of consent from 16 to 18 and broadened the scope of rape under Section 375 IPC, could be applied to a case where the alleged offence occurred on 31st May 2011. The answer, the Court said, was a resounding no.

Relying on Article 20(1) of the Constitution, which prohibits retrospective criminal liability, Justice Basavaraja observed:

“The principle of non-retrospectivity in criminal law is a fundamental tenet rooted in the maxim ‘nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege’—no crime or punishment without a pre-existing law.”

The judgment held that since the victim was 16 years, 2 months, and 18 days old at the time of the incident, and consent was legally valid under the unamended IPC, the conviction under Section 376 was legally unsustainable.

Medical Evidence Reveals No Sexual Assault — Conviction Based Solely On Testimony Of Victim Cannot Sustain Without Corroboration

The prosecution had alleged that the appellant, known to the victim, had taken her away on the pretext of marriage and committed forcible intercourse. However, the High Court found the prosecution evidence unconvincing. The medical certificate (Exhibit P-3) and the testimony of Dr. Rekha (PW-6) stated the hymen was intact, and no signs of recent sexual activity or assault were found. Further, Dr. Rudramurthy (CW-12) confirmed no physical signs of intercourse on the accused either.

The Court noted: “The evidence shows that the victim eloped voluntarily. She stayed with the appellant for several days in Kanchipuram. The prosecution failed to establish either inducement, coercion, or force.”

Importantly, the Court stressed that Section 114A of the Evidence Act, which presumes lack of consent in rape cases under Section 376(2) IPC, was inapplicable, as the charge was framed only under Section 376(1). The burden remained on the prosecution to prove the absence of consent, which it failed to discharge.

Conviction Under Section 366A IPC Also Unsustainable In Absence Of Evidence Of Enticement Or Illicit Purpose

Justice Basavaraja also examined the applicability of Section 366A IPC, which punishes inducement of a minor girl (under 18) to go from one place to another with the intention that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person.

In the present case, the victim left her home willingly, and there was no allegation or proof that she was procured for intercourse with any third party. The Court noted:

“The allegation was that the accused took the girl to marry her. The prosecution has not alleged or proven that the accused intended or caused the victim to be seduced for intercourse with another man. Hence, the essential ingredients of Section 366A IPC are not met.”

The Court added that under pre-amendment law, the burden was on the prosecution to prove that the girl was either forcibly taken or seduced for illicit intercourse — elements completely missing in this case.

Court Refers To Landmark Judgments On Retrospective Penal Provisions

Justice Basavaraja extensively cited Supreme Court rulings, particularly Satauram Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2025) AIR SC 3439], where the apex court held:

“The constitutional bar against retrospective imposition of a harsher penalty under Article 20(1) is clear and absolute.”

The High Court echoed this, stating: “The law applicable to a criminal offence is the one in force at the time of its commission. The trial court’s reliance on the amended definition of rape was wholly unjustified and contrary to binding constitutional protections.”

The judgment also cited Kuldeep Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2010 (2) Crimes (HC) 389], Alamelu v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2011) 2 SCC 385], and Manak Chand v. State of Haryana [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1397], reiterating the inviolability of Article 20(1) and the rule against retrospective penal laws.

“Veritas Est Justitiae Mater” — Truth Is The Mother Of Justice

Commenting on the need to carefully evaluate evidence in sensitive cases, the Court observed: “Separating truth from falsehood in evidence is encapsulated in the legal principle that the court has a duty to separate the grain from the chaff, as I believe ‘Veritas est Justitiae Mater’ — truth is the mother of justice.”

Given the contradictions in the victim’s testimony, lack of corroboration, and medical evidence ruling out force, the Court held that the trial court had erred in relying solely on the victim's uncorroborated version.

Conviction Set Aside, Appellant Acquitted Of All Charges

Ultimately, the Karnataka High Court allowed the appeal, acquitting the appellant of all charges under Sections 366A and 376 IPC. It directed that any bail bonds stand cancelled and that the judgment be circulated to all judicial officers and prosecution departments for strict compliance — a clear message to the lower judiciary about the dangers of misapplying amended criminal laws to past offences.

“The law looks forward, not backward — Lex Prospicit, Non Respicit. The application of the 2013 Amendment Act to an offence of 2011 amounts to a constitutional infraction that cannot be condoned,” the Court concluded.

Date of Decision: 04.12.2025