Supreme Court upholds convictions for kidnapping, sexual assault and SC/ST atrocity; life sentence under SC/ST Act sustained

A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan heard the appeal against the High Court of Chhattisgarh’s judgment confirming the conviction and sentences imposed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Surajpur. The appeal challenged the findings on age, voluntariness of the victim’s statements, medical evidence and applicability of Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the concurrent findings that the appellant had kidnapped a minor for illicit intercourse, forcibly sexually assaulted her and committed offences attracting the SC/ST Act. The Court treated the prosecution evidence, including the victim’s testimony, school admission records and forensic reports, as reliable and sufficient to sustain conviction under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 506 IPC, Section 4 POCSO and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, with sentences to run concurrently. The Court noted that permission to treat a witness as hostile was an “extraordinary phenomenon” and required careful exercise of discretion: "the contingency of cross-examining the witness by the party calling him is an extraordinary phenomenon and permission should be given only in special cases." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: Background The prosecution case arose from a report lodged on 14.05.2018 that a minor girl (“P”) had left home on 10.05.2018 and did not return. Investigation led to recovery of the victim and allegations that the appellant lured her by promising marriage, took her into a forest, and raped her. The trial court convicted the accused on 22.10.2019; the High Court confirmed the conviction on 16.06.2023. The Supreme Court heard arguments on the adequacy of evidence proving age, the reliability of the victim and other witnesses, the chain of custody for forensic exhibits, and whether the offence attracted the enhanced punishment under the amended SC/ST Act.

The Court analysed documentary and oral proof of age, including the school admission register (entry recording date of birth as 15.09.2004) and testimony of the school teacher, and held the victim to be a minor on the date of the incident. Medical evidence — a doctor's finding of a hymenal injury and forensic reports indicating presence of semen and human sperm on seized garments and slides — was accepted and the chain of custody was held to be intact. The Court reviewed authorities on treating a witness as hostile and reiterated that hostile designation and cross-examination under Section 154 of the Evidence Act required material showing a witness had “resiled” or exhibited hostility; nevertheless, it held that the victim’s Section 164 statement and in-court testimony were corroborative in material particulars.

On the SC/ST Act, the Court relied upon the statutory presumption in Section 8(c) and precedent that post-amendment mere knowledge of the victim’s caste was sufficient to attract Section 3(2)(v); the Court found the accused’s prior acquaintance with the family established that presumption and observed that no contrary evidence was produced.

Final result: the appeal was dismissed and the concurrent convictions and sentences were affirmed.

Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.4502 OF 2025 (@ SLP(Crl.) No.14625 of 2024) Case Title: Shivkumar @ Baleshwar Yadav v. The State of Chhattisgarh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rishabh Sahu, Deputy Advocate General