Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan upheld the conviction of an accused for kidnapping and sexually assaulting a minor girl belonging to a Scheduled Caste, confirming the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Chhattisgarh High Court under the IPC, the POCSO Act, and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Bench dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution had proved the offences beyond reasonable doubt. It also criticized the practice of declaring witnesses hostile for minor inconsistencies, emphasizing that such discretion under Section 154 of the Evidence Act (now Section 157 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances where a witness entirely departs from the prosecution’s case or displays clear hostility.

The case arose from a criminal appeal filed by the accused challenging his conviction and sentence under the Indian Penal Code, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The prosecution alleged that on the evening of 10 May 2018, the minor victim left her home after dinner to serve food to her grandfather but did not return. Her father lodged a report at the local police station, suspecting the accused, a neighbour known to the family, of having enticed her away. The investigation revealed that the accused had taken the victim into a nearby forest, threatened her, and subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse. The victim, belonging to a Scheduled Caste, was later recovered, and her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Also Read: Supreme Court Orders CBI Investigation Into Karur Stampede; Retired Supreme Court Judge To Oversee Probe

The prosecution produced 19 witnesses, including the victim, her father, relatives, a schoolteacher, and a medical officer. The victim’s school admission register was seized and presented to establish her age as below 18 at the time of the incident. The medical report confirmed recent sexual activity and the presence of semen on seized materials. Forensic analysis supported these findings. The prosecution invoked Sections 363, 366, 376, and 506 of the IPC, Section 4 of the POCSO Act, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The Trial Court convicted the accused, and the High Court of Chhattisgarh affirmed the conviction. The accused then approached the Supreme Court, contesting the reliability of the prosecution’s evidence and questioning the applicability of the SC/ST Act. The State defended the conviction, arguing that the victim’s age, medical evidence, and the accused’s knowledge of her caste were conclusively proven.

The Court observed that “though she was subjected to a searching cross-examination, nothing was elicited to dilute her testimony.” It found that her account of the abduction and assault was corroborated by medical and forensic evidence.

Regarding the proof of age, the Court stated that “the evidence of the father, the teacher, and the school admission register inspires confidence… to hold that the victim as on the date of the incident… was a minor.” It accepted the school admission register as admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, referring to precedent in State of Chhattisgarh vs. Lekhram to affirm its evidentiary value.

The Court recorded that “the evidence on record clearly establishes that the accused was well acquainted with the victim and her family prior to the incident and was fully aware of their caste status.” It noted that under Section 8(c) of the amended Act, such familiarity creates a presumption of knowledge of caste identity unless rebutted, which the accused failed to do.

Also Read: Income Tax | Manual Appeal by NRI Considered Valid for DTVSV Scheme Benefits: Gujarat High Court

The Bench also addressed the conduct of the prosecution in treating the complainant as hostile. It observed that “we are at a loss to understand as to why the witness was treated as hostile in the first place,” cautioning that the discretion under Section 154 of the Evidence Act (now Section 157 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) should not be exercised casually. The Court stated that “the contingency of cross-examining the witness by the party calling is an extraordinary phenomenon and permission should be given only in special cases.”

The Supreme Court Division Bench dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts. It stated that “the above discussion clearly brings out the fact that the victim was kidnapped, subjected to forcible intercourse, and all this with the knowledge that the victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste.”

“We find no good reason to interfere with the concurrent judgments convicting the accused and sentencing him for the various offences. “The appeal is hence dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Adv. Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Adv. Dr. Ajay Kumar, Adv. Ms. Naina Garg, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rishabh Sahu, D.A.G. Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR Ms. Prabhleen A. Shukla, Adv.

Case Title: Shivkumar @ Baleshwar Yadav v. The State of Chhattisgarh
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 4502 of 2025
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice K.V. Viswanathan