Criminal Law-- Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 363, 366, 506 and 376-- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012(POCSO)- Section 4-- The Scheduled Casres and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989- Section 3(2)(V)-- Kidnapping-- Rape on minor girl-- Complaint lodged u/s 36, 366, 376 and 506 of IPC and U/s 4 of POCSO and U/s 3(2)(V) of Atrocities Act- Conviction of appellant by trial court- Appeal before High court preferred by appellant- Dismissal of appeal by high court-- Aggrieved-- Victim narrated entire incident stated that forcible sexual intercourse committed by appellant after took away and also threatened her- Statement of victim u/s 164 of CRPC corroborated by her deposition-- Complainant declared hostile by trial court-- Error committed by trial court in declaring complainant hostile-- Observations-- Merely because witness is declared hostile does not make unreliable-- Case of Bhagwansingh (Supra) referred-- Date of birth of victim mentioned in Admission Register of school was relied upon-- Age of victim proved-- Victim was minor as per oral as well as documentary evidence-- Medical evidence as to cut injury on hymen of victim-- Presence of semen and human sperm on clothes-- Proof of caste certificate produced on record-- Appellant was knowing the caste of victim before the incident-- Acquaintance of accused with the family of victim is enough to presume that the accused was aware of the caste and identity of victim-- Justification in conviction-- Appeal Dismissed
Para-- 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) -- The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the offence was committed on the ground that the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste -- The Court noted that the evidence did not establish that the offence was committed in public view or that the accused knew the caste of the victim -- The Court also observed that the trial court and High Court erred in convicting the appellant under the SC/ST Act without proper scrutiny of the evidence -- The conviction under other sections was not interfered with as the appeal was limited to the SC/ST Act conviction
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act -- The conviction under other sections was not interfered with
Citation: 2025 LawText (SC) (10) 1
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 4502 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.14625 of 2024)
Date of Decision: 2025-10-14
Case Title: The Issue of whether the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was sustainable given the evidence on record
Before Judge: B.V. Nagarathna J. , K.V. Viswanathan J.
Advocate(s): Mr. Kaushal Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rishabh Sahu, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State
Appellant: Shivkumar @ Baleshwar Yadav
Respondent: The State of Chhattisgarh
Nature of Litigation: Criminal appeal against conviction under various sections including SC/ST Act
Remedy Sought: Appellant seeking acquittal from conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act
Filing Reason: Appellant convicted by Trial Court and confirmed by High Court for offences including under SC/ST Act
Previous Decisions: Trial Court convicted appellant on 22.10.2019 -- High Court confirmed conviction on 16.06.2023
Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was sustainable based on the evidence on record Whether the prosecution proved that the offence was committed on the ground of the victim's caste
Submissions/Arguments: Appellant's counsel argued that the prosecution failed to prove essential ingredients of Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act State argued that the conviction was proper based on the evidence
Ratio Decidendi: For conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, the prosecution must prove that the offence was committed on the ground that the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste -- Mere belonging to Scheduled Caste is not sufficient -- There must be evidence that the offence was committed because of the victim's caste -- The evidence did not establish that the accused knew the caste of the victim or that the offence was committed in public view
Judgment Excerpts: The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the offence was committed on the ground that the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste The Court noted that the evidence did not establish that the offence was committed in public view or that the accused knew the caste of the victim
Procedural History: FIR lodged on 14.05.2018 under Section 363 IPC -- Chargesheet filed -- Charges framed on 05.09.2018 -- Trial conducted -- Trial Court convicted appellant on 22.10.2019 -- High Court confirmed conviction on 16.06.2023 -- Supreme Court granted leave and heard appeal
