Okay, here's a summary based on the provided information. Note that the provided case content is insufficient to create a full case summary. Section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, doesn't represent a specific court case but is a provision within the Act itself. Therefore, I will provide a summary based on the legal provision itself, rather than a specific court case.

Short Summary

Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, deals with the presumption of lack of consent in prosecution for rape. If sexual intercourse is proven and the woman states she did not consent, the court shall presume that she did not consent. This provision shifts the burden of proof onto the accused to demonstrate consent.

Facts

This section is not based on a specific set of facts but is a general rule of evidence applicable in rape trials. The relevant "facts" are the establishment of sexual intercourse and the woman's testimony that she did not consent.

Issues

The primary issue addressed by Section 114A is: When does the court presume the absence of consent in a rape trial? And, what is the effect of such presumption?

Arguments (Hypothetical)

Since this is a statutory provision, arguments would arise in the context of its application in specific cases.

• Accused's Argument (Hypothetical): The accused might argue that the woman's testimony is unreliable, that there is evidence suggesting consent despite her denial, or that the presumption under Section 114A is being misapplied in the specific circumstances of the case. They might also argue that the presumption violates their right to a fair trial.

• Prosecution's Argument (Hypothetical): The prosecution would argue that the woman's testimony is credible, that the evidence supports her claim of lack of consent, and that Section 114A is properly applied to shift the burden of proof to the accused.

Court's Reasoning

Section 114A reflects the legislative intent to address the difficulties in proving lack of consent in rape cases. The court's reasoning, when applying this section, would focus on:

• Whether sexual intercourse has been proven.
• Whether the woman has testified that she did not consent.
• The credibility and reliability of the woman's testimony.
• Whether the accused has presented sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of lack of consent.

The court must carefully consider all evidence and circumstances to determine if the presumption is appropriately applied and if the accused has successfully rebutted it.

Conclusion

Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, establishes a presumption of lack of consent in rape trials when sexual intercourse is proven and the woman testifies she did not consent. This shifts the burden of proof to the accused to demonstrate consent. The section does not provide specific relief but dictates how courts should approach the issue of consent in rape cases.