SC Upholds Life Sentence in POCSO & SC/ST Case Victim’s Testimony, Medical & Caste Proof Found Conclusive

The appellant Shivkumar @ Baleshwar Yadav challenged his conviction by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Surajpur, affirmed by the Chhattisgarh High Court, for offences under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 IPC, Section 4 of the POCSO Act, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The case arose from a complaint lodged by the victim’s father on 14 May 2018, alleging that his minor daughter, “P,” had gone missing on the night of 10 May 2018 and was later found to have been kidnapped and sexually assaulted by the appellant.

During the investigation, the victim’s school admission register, caste certificate, and medical examination reports were seized. The prosecution examined 19 witnesses, including the victim (PW-2), her father (PW-1), the teacher (PW-9), and the doctor (PW-10). The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment under the SC/ST Act, along with concurrent sentences under other provisions. The High Court upheld the conviction on 16 June 2023, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

The appellant argued false implication and inconsistencies in witness statements, claiming no proof of the victim’s minority or forcible intercourse. The State opposed, emphasizing consistent testimony of the victim, corroborating medical and documentary evidence, and the statutory presumption under Section 8(c) of the SC/ST Act, which establishes knowledge of the victim’s caste when the accused is acquainted with her family.

Central Issue: Whether the conviction and sentence for kidnapping, rape, and offences under the POCSO and SC/ST Acts were justified based on the evidence and legal presumptions.

SC Decided: The Hon’ble Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the findings of the lower courts. The Supreme Court found the victim’s submissions truthful and consistent, supported by her Section 164 CrPC statement, and corroborated by medical evidence showing recent forceful intercourse. The Court upheld the authenticity of the school admission register and teacher’s testimony (PW-9) to confirm the victim’s age as below 18 years, thereby validating her status as a minor.

The Court strongly criticised the casual practice of declaring witnesses hostile, observing that prosecutors often misuse this provision without justification. Referring to Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa (1976) and Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2001), the Bench reiterated that a witness should be declared hostile only when clear hostility or untruthfulness is evident, not for minor inconsistencies. The Court clarified that even hostile testimony remains admissible if corroborated by other evidence.

On the SC/ST Act charge, the Court held that the amended Section 3(2)(v) (post-2016) and Section 8(c) establish a presumption that an accused acquainted with the victim’s family is aware of their caste identity. Since multiple witnesses confirmed the accused’s familiarity with the victim’s family, the presumption was unrebutted. Relying on Patan Jamal Vali v. State of A.P. (2021), the Bench affirmed that knowledge of caste suffices for conviction under the amended law.

Thus, the conviction and life sentence were upheld in full.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below