Victim's Mental Age Was That of a 4-Year-Old — Her Inability to Consent Is Self-Evident : Madras High Court Upholds Conviction in Rape of Mentally Retarded Woman

“Law Cannot Ignore Mental Incapacity — Consent Is Meaningless Where Comprehension Does Not Exist” - In a poignant reaffirmation of the law’s protective scope over mentally challenged individuals, the Madras High Court upheld the conviction of a man found guilty of raping a mentally retarded woman, whose mental age was medically determined to be that of a 4-year-old child. While modifying the sentence from ten years to seven years rigorous imprisonment, Justice M. Nirmal Kumar stated that “the conviction cannot be interfered with as the act was perpetrated on a victim who was wholly incapable of understanding or consenting to such an act.”

The Court held that the increased sentence of ten years, introduced by the 2018 amendment to Section 376(2)(j)(i) IPC, could not be applied retrospectively to an offence that occurred in 2015. Yet, the judgment firmly reiterated the gravity of the crime, noting that “this is not merely a sexual offence; it is an exploitation of helplessness.”

“This Is Not Just Penetrative Assault — It Is the Exploitation of Absolute Vulnerability”

The case traces back to 26 May 2015, when the victim, a student of Manasa School for Special Children, was staying at her aunt’s home during school holidays. Left alone for a brief time, the young woman — known to suffer from significant intellectual disability — was approached by the accused, Pradeep, an employee at a nearby hotel. Taking advantage of her condition and isolation, he led her to the terrace and raped her.

Her aunt (P.W.1), returning home and finding the girl missing, rushed to the terrace only to witness the act. “She saw the accused committing the act, and upon being discovered, he fled the scene half-dressed,” the Court recorded.

The sequence of events was corroborated by the hotel owner (P.W.2), who testified that the accused had fled in haste and appeared visibly disturbed. Medical evidence presented by doctors and mental health professionals confirmed both the occurrence of penetrative sexual assault and the victim’s mental incapacity, with her cognitive functioning assessed to be that of a toddler.

The Court noted, “The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 leaves no room for doubt. And when the mental age of the victim is just four, the notion of consent is legally and ethically meaningless.”

“Mental Retardation Is Not Mere Delay — It Is an Inability to Grasp or Choose”

Justice Nirmal Kumar emphasised that the concept of consent becomes void when a person is mentally incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of sexual activity. Referring to the evidence of C.W.1 and C.W.2 — both medical professionals who assessed the victim — the Court found that she could not possibly comprehend what was being done to her.

“The medical report leaves no ambiguity — the victim was mentally retarded and her ability to resist or comprehend was non-existent. This was not just an act of lust, but an act of cowardice,” the Court remarked.

“Sentence Must Be Based on Law in Force at Time of Offence” — High Court Modifies Punishment

While affirming the conviction under Section 376(2)(j)(i) IPC, the Court took note of the fact that the enhanced minimum sentence of ten years, introduced through Act 22 of 2018, came into effect on 21 April 2018, three years after the offence.

The Court ruled: “As on the date of the incident, i.e., 26.05.2015, the minimum prescribed punishment was seven years. Applying the amended penalty would violate the principle of non-retrospectivity in criminal law.”

Accordingly, while keeping the conviction intact, the sentence was reduced to seven years, and the fine was modified from ₹50,000 to ₹5,000.

The Court also noted, without giving it mitigating weight, that the appellant had donated ₹1,00,000 to the Manasa School during the pendency of appeal — a gesture that, in the Court’s eyes, did not dilute the crime or its consequences.

Delivering a judgment rooted in both legal clarity and human empathy, the High Court made it clear that the mentally incapacitated are entitled to heightened protection, and that any sexual act upon them, whether forceful or not, amounts to rape by default under the law.

Justice M. Nirmal Kumar concluded:“The law cannot pretend that consent exists where the mind cannot understand. In cases like these, the act speaks for itself, and so does the silence of the victim.”

Date of Decision: 23 April 2025