Statutory Presumption Under Section 114A Evidence Act Stands Rebutted When Prosecutrix's Conduct Shows Voluntary Companionship And Lack Of Protest: Madhya Pradesh High Court

"The presumption under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act is undoubtedly attracted where the statutory prerequisites are satisfied; however, it is a rebuttable presumption and not an irrebuttable conclusion of law." Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a criminal appeal judgment, held that the statutory presumption of absence of consent under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 stands successfully rebutted when the prosecutrix's own admissions and conduct during prolonged travel demonstrate voluntary companionship without raising any alarm.

Justice B.P. Sharma observed that once the prosecutrix is found to be a major and her cross-examination reveals ample opportunities to seek help which she consciously ignored, the prosecution's case of forcible abduction and rape collapses, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt.

Factual Matrix And Trial Court Findings

The appellant faced trial under Section 363, 366, 376(2)(n) IPC, the POCSO Act, and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act after a missing person report was lodged in November 2020. The Trial Court acquitted the appellant of charges under the POCSO Act, Section 363 IPC, and the SC/ST Act upon finding that the prosecution failed to prove the victim was a minor. However, the Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 366 and 376(2)(n) of the IPC, sentencing him to 5 and 10 years of rigorous imprisonment respectively.

Legal Challenge Raised In Appeal

The primary question before the court was whether the conviction under Sections 366 and 376(2)(n) IPC was sustainable once the victim was held to be a major and the evidence indicated voluntary movement. The appellant argued that the prosecutrix travelled through public places, resided near active farming areas, and interacted with various individuals without raising any protest or seeking assistance, thereby establishing consensual physical relations.

Conduct Of Prosecutrix Disproves Force And Coercion

Prosecutrix Stayed Voluntarily Without Raising Alarm

The court meticulously examined the cross-examination of the prosecutrix and noted that she resided with the appellant for about eight days in a hut near a canal where several farmers worked daily. Despite having numerous opportunities to disclose any coercion or seek help, she maintained silence and later travelled across public spaces to Khandwa on a motorcycle without raising any alarm or approaching police personnel present along the route.

"Admissions In Cross-Examination Probabilise Defense Version"

The bench emphasized that the prosecutrix's admissions regarding her unobstructed movement and failure to protest created severe doubts about the prosecution's allegations of continuous force. Material contradictions and omissions between her deposition and previous statements under Section 161 CrPC (Ex.D/1) further undermined the narrative of forcible abduction and repeated sexual assault.

Nature And Rebuttal Of Section 114A Evidence Act - Section 114A Presumption Is Rebuttable, Not Absolute

The court analyzed the statutory text of Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, which mandates the court to presume absence of consent when sexual intercourse is proved and the woman states she did not consent. However, the bench underscored that this is a rebuttable presumption that must be weighed against the surrounding facts, the conduct of the prosecutrix, and the overall reliability of the evidence.

"Accused Need Not Lead Independent Defense Evidence"

Relying on the Supreme Court precedent in Pankaj Singh v. State of Haryana, (2024) 19 SCC 256, the high court reiterated that the accused is not obligated to lead independent defense evidence if the prosecution's own evidence and surrounding circumstances sufficiently probabilize the defense theory of consent. The cumulative effect of the prosecutrix's omissions, contradictions, and voluntary conduct successfully displaced the statutory presumption under Section 114A.

Conviction Set Aside On Benefit Of Doubt

Concluding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated December 30, 2025. The court directed that the appellant be released forthwith from custody, unless required in any other pending matter, and ordered the refund of deposited fine amounts along with the transmission of trial records.

Date of Decision: 29 July 2026