1. Kidnapping, rape of a minor, and criminal intimidation — conviction under IPC, POCSO Act, and SC/ST Act. (Para 2 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1814
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. Nagarathna, K. V. Viswanathan, JJ.
Shivkumar @ Baleshwar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
The State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4502 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 14625 of 2024)
Decided On : 14-10-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Adv. Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Adv. Dr. Ajay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Surjeet Siingh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Adv. Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Adv. Dr. Ajay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Surjeet Siingh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Kidnapping and rape of girl child – Merely because a witness is declared hostile does not make him unreliable – Small or insignificant omissions cannot be the basis for treating witnesses hostile.
(2) Acquaintance of accused with family of victim is enough to presume that accused was aware of caste and identity of victim.
Headnote:
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 4 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 363, 366, 506 and 376 – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(2)(v) – Kidnapping and rape of girl child – Life imprisonment – Merely because a witness is declared hostile does not make him unreliable – Small or insignificant omissions cannot be the basis for treating witnesses hostile – Evidence of father, evidence of teacher and school admission register, inspire confidence in Court to hold that victim as on date of incident, was a minor – Victim belongs to scheduled caste and produced caste certificate – Consistent statements of prosecution witnesses collectively demonstrate that accused had prior familiarity with family and knowledge of their caste, which satisfies requirement under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act – Nothing has been brought on record to rebut the presumption and as such, Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act is clearly attracted – Accused was well acquainted with victim and her family prior to incident and was fully aware of their caste status – Acquaintance of accused with family of victim is enough to presume that accused was aware of caste and identity of victim – No good reason to interfere with concurrent judgments convicting accused and sentencing him for various offences. (Paras 9, 12, 18, 21, 24 and 26)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal calls in question correctness of judgment dated 16.06.2023 passed by High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 9/2020. By said judgment, High Court confirmed conviction and sentence imposed on appellant by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Case No. 33/2018. Trial Court, by its judgment dated 22.10.2019, convicted appellant for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 506 and 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced him.
Findings of Court:
Victim was kidnapped (Section 363 IPC), for the purpose of illicit intercourse (Section 366 IPC), was subjected to forcible intercourse (Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO), criminal intimidation (Section 506 IPC) and all this with the knowledge that the victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste (Section 3(2)(v), of the SC/ST Act).
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Act Referred
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
crime and sentencing
- offences against the person
- special acts
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the correctness of the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court. (Para 2 )
3. Evaluation of victim's testimony, medical evidence, school records for age proof, and the accused's knowledge of the victim's caste identity. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 13 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 20 , 21 , 24 )
4. Witness hostility requires material evidence of untruth; school registers are admissible for age proof; knowledge of caste identity sustains SC/ST Act convictions. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 19 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
5. Appeal dismissed; concurrent judgments of conviction and sentencing confirmed. (Para 26 )
6. When can a party calling a witness be permitted to cross-examine them as a hostile witness under the Evidence Act?
Permission is an extraordinary phenomenon granted only in special cases where there is material showing the witness is not speaking the truth, has exhibited hostility, or has resiled from a material statement. Small or insignificant omissions are insufficient grounds for declaring a witness hostile. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
7. What is the evidentiary value of a school admission register in proving the date of birth of a person?
A school register is admissible evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act as it is maintained in the discharge of public duty. While not conclusive, it has significant evidentiary value, especially when corroborated by oral evidence. (Para 16 , 17 , 19 )
8. What is the threshold for proving that an offence was committed based on caste identity under the SC/ST Act post-2016 amendment?
Post-amendment, the threshold for proving the crime was committed on the basis of caste identity is decreased; mere knowledge that the victim is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 3(2)(v). (Para 21 , 22 )
9. How is the accused's knowledge of the victim's caste identity presumed under the SC/ST Act?
Under Section 8(c), if the accused had personal knowledge of the victim or their family, the court shall presume the accused was aware of the caste or tribal identity of the victim unless the contrary is proved. (Para 23 , 24 )
JUDGMENT :
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the judgment dated 16.06.2023 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.9/2020. By the said judgment, the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence as imposed on the appellant by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh in Session Case No.33/2018. The Trial Court, by its judgment dated 22.10.2019, convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 3 63 , 366, 506 and 376 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short the “IPC”), Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short the “POCSO”) and Section 3 (2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the “SC/ST Act”), and sentenced him as under:-
| Offence Under Section | Sentence |
| 363 of IPC | R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 1 month. |
| 366 of IPC | R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 1 month. |
| 376 of IPC | R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 1 month. |
| 506 of IPC | R.I. for 3 months and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 1 month. |
| 4 of POCSO Act | R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 1 month |
| 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act | Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 1 month. All the sentences shall run concurrently |
3. We have heard Mr. Kaushal Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rishabh Sahu, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. We have also perused the records, including the original Trial Court records.
THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: -
4. On 14.05.2018, PW-1, the father of the prosecutrix, lodged a report at Police Station Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh (Ext.P1), stating that his daughter “P”, a minor, had on 10.05.2018 at 8.00 pm served food to everyone inside the house. Thereafter, she left the house saying that she will return. When she did not return, a search was carried out, but she could not be found. The father suspected that the appellant would have lured away “P”. An offence under Section 3 63 of IPC was registered and investigation was carried out and “P” was recovered. On questioning, it was found that the appellant had lured her away by promising marriage and after taking her forcibly subjected her to sexual intercourse. Offences under Sections 3 66 , 376 and 506 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act were added. Since the victim belonged to the Scheduled Caste, Section 3 (2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was also added. Medical examination was carried out of “P”. Statements of complainant and witnesses were recorded. The marksheet, caste certificate and the school admission register (Dakhil Kharij Register) were seized. Chargesheet was filed against the accused.
5. Charges were framed against the accused by order dated 05.09.2018 and with the accused pleading not guilty, the case was set down for trial. The prosecution examined 19 witnesses and marked exhibits.
6. The prosecution case mainly revolves around the evidence of PW-2 – the victim, PW-1 – the complainant, PW-9 – the school teacher, who made available the school records for proof of age, and PW-10 – the Doctor.
EVIDENCE OF VICTIM: -
7. PW-2 categorically deposed that she knew the appellant; that she had left the house to serve food to her grandfather who lived a little away from their house; that the appellant who was hiding near the Sendhwar tree, grabbed her, pressed her mouth and threatened to kill her when she tried to scream. The victim clearly deposed that the appellant tol
