Ethics · 17 Aug 2026

Section 114A Evidence Act consent presumption

Which one of the following statements is NOT correct?

ASection 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 creates a presumption against consent in certain rape prosecutions.
BThe Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 clarifies that the absence of physical resistance by the victim implies consent.
CIn Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021), the Supreme Court condemned judicial stereotyping of sexual assault survivors.
DThe Bombay High Court's 2026 verdict overturned a trial court acquittal that had relied partly on the complainant's post-incident conduct not matching expected "victim behaviour."
This question is based on: The Court That Protected Her Also Explains Why She Was Never Safe From the Question
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 17 Aug 2026
About this question

Why in news

On August 6, 2026, the Bombay High Court overturned the 2021 acquittal of Tarun Tejpal, convicting him and sentencing him to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment, reopening debate on whether courts can treat a survivor's deviation from expected trauma behaviour as evidence against credibility.

Why for UPSC

This tests a commonly inverted statutory provision - students often mix up whether the 2013 Act says resistance "implies" or "does not imply" consent, which is precisely the kind of exact-wording trap UPSC favours.

Prelims summary

Section 114A of the Evidence Act presumes absence of consent in specified rape prosecutions; the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 clarifies that lack of physical resistance does NOT imply consent. Gurmit Singh (1996) and Aparna Bhat (2021) are key precedents against judicial stereotyping of survivors.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.