Presumption as to absence of consent in certain prosecution for rape
Section 120 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with presumption as to absence of consent in certain prosecution for rape. In a prosecution for rape under sub-section (2) of section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 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 The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
In a prosecution for rape under sub-section (2) of section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, 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 section 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Section 120, The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act 47 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Evidence Act
IEA 114A Presumption as to absence of consent in certain prosecution for rape Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Deepak Gulati vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 114A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For a conviction under Section 376 IPC based on false promise of marriage, the court must find clear and convincing evidence that the accused harboured mala fide intentions and made a false promise of marriage with the sole objective of seducing the victim into sexual acts from the very inception of the relationship. Mere breach of a promise to marry, or failure to fulfil a promise due to unforeseen circumstances or changed intentions during the course of the relationship, does not constitute rape unless the deception was deliberate and predatory from the beginning. The victim's age, maturity, voluntary participation, lack of resistance, and continued hope of marriage are relevant factors in determining whether consent was genuinely given or obtained through deception.
On this section: Presumption regarding consent in rape cases; the court noted that this section presumes absence of consent only when the prosecutrix testifies she did not give consent, but the facts of the case did not warrant reliance on this presumption
-
Munna vs State of M. P
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 114A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While the testimony of a prosecutrix in a sexual assault case deserves significant weight and can be the basis for conviction even without corroboration, such conviction cannot be sustained when the prosecutrix's statement has inherent infirmities and the totality of circumstances creates doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version. The presence of major discrepancies between initial allegations and trial version, the victim's own subsequent retraction, complete absence of medical or physical corroborative evidence, internal contradictions in the victim's testimony, and evidence of motive for false accusation collectively create a situation where the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
On this section: Statutory presumption regarding absence of consent in certain circumstances; court noted this presumption does not overcome infirmities in prosecution testimony when credibility is impaired
-
Anoop V.M. v. State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 114A, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
HC Final Order order-2.pdf 2025-04-10 DATE VERIFIED. Kerala DB P.B. Suresh Kumar/Jobin Sebastian. Crl.A 1491/2019. IEA 114A presumption applies only in a s.376(2) rape prosecution where intercourse is proved and the woman states she did not consent; it cannot be drawn for attempt, and cannot be drawn without that foundational statement. Map iea 114A + BSA 120 successor (near-identical 0.8647). Do not pad ipc 90 (already filled by Anurag Soni).
On this section: Successor of IEA 114A (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.8647). The intercourse-plus-non-consent-statement holding carries to BSA 120.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 120
What have the courts held on Section 120 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
Deepak Gulati vs State of Haryana (20 May 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IEA 114A, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Presumption regarding consent in rape cases; the court noted that this section presumes absence of consent only when the prosecutrix testifies she did not give consent, but the facts of the case did not warrant reliance on this presumption. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2013 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 120 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BSA 120, section 120 BSA, section 120 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. People searching for it also type bsa 120 putzmeister. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Deepak Gulati vs State of Haryana (20 May 2013).
What should I read with Section 120 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 63 (Rape), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 64 (Punishment for rape), so none of them can safely be read on its own. It carries forward IEA 114A (Presumption as to absence of consent in certain prosecution for rape), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 120 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam come into force?
Section 120 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, cited as BSA 120, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 26. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1128 words
- 12. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body or bodily feeling1076 words
- 95. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement815 words
- 2. Definitions794 words
- 6. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 63. Admissibility of electronic records764 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.