The Gauhati High Court, in Sh. P. Rohmingsanga v. The State of Mizoram & Anr., set aside a rape conviction and held that mental disability alone does not automatically establish a woman’s incapacity to provide valid consent. The case concerned a 24-year-old woman with a certified mental disability. The trial court had convicted the accused under Section 376(2)(l) of the IPC, substantially relying on the victim’s disability and her assessed mental age. The High Court held that a mentally challenged adult cannot automatically be equated with a child merely because an assessment indicates a lower mental age. The Court stressed that the prosecution must establish, through evidence, that the woman was actually incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of the sexual act. It also considered procedural safeguards concerning the recording of statements of disabled victims under Section 164(5A) CrPC. The judgment emphasized both the autonomy of disabled adults and strict compliance with statutory safeguards governing their evidence.