New Delhi: In a significant ruling that reiterates the strengthened provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the conviction and life sentence of a man found guilty of kidnapping and raping a minor girl belonging to a Scheduled Caste community. The apex court reaffirmed that, following the 2016 amendment to the Act, mere knowledge of the victim’s caste is sufficient to attract penal liability under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
The judgment, delivered by a division bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused and maintained the concurrent findings of the trial court and the Chhattisgarh High Court. Both lower courts had convicted the appellant for offences under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and the SC/ST Act.
The case originated from a complaint lodged on May 14, 2018, by the victim’s father (PW-1) at a police station in Surajpur district, Chhattisgarh. The father reported that his minor daughter had gone missing on the evening of May 10, 2018, and expressed suspicion that the appellant, who lived in the same locality, had lured her away under false pretences.
Following an extensive investigation, the police traced the missing girl and found that the accused had abducted her on the pretext of marriage and subjected her to repeated sexual assault. The prosecution subsequently charged the appellant under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 366 (abduction to compel marriage), 376 (rape), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. In addition, charges were framed under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, since the victim was a minor and belonged to a Scheduled Caste community.
The Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Surajpur, found the accused guilty on October 22, 2019. The trial court imposed life imprisonment for the offence under the SC/ST Act and lesser concurrent sentences for the other offences. The Chhattisgarh High Court later affirmed this decision on June 16, 2023. Aggrieved by the verdict, the appellant approached the Supreme Court challenging the conviction and the sentence.
In its detailed judgment, authored by Justice K.V. Viswanathan, the Supreme Court examined the entire evidentiary record and upheld the lower courts’ conclusions. The bench noted that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt through a combination of witness testimonies, documentary evidence, and forensic reports.
The apex court attached significant weight to the testimony of the victim (PW-2), describing it as “clear, consistent, and credible.” The girl deposed that the appellant, known to her from the neighbourhood, had forcibly taken her to a nearby forest, threatened to kill her if she resisted, and committed rape. Her statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code corroborated the oral testimony in all material particulars. The court observed that her deposition inspired confidence and bore the hallmark of truth.
To establish that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident, the prosecution relied on the testimony of her schoolteacher (PW-9) and the school’s admission register. The records showed the victim’s date of birth as September 15, 2004, making her 13 years old on the date of the offence. The court cited its earlier ruling in State of Chhattisgarh vs. Lekhram to reaffirm that an entry in a school register is admissible evidence for determining age.
The medical examination conducted by Dr. Suchita Nirmala Kindo (PW-10) revealed injuries consistent with sexual assault, including a cut on the hymen. Forensic analysis further confirmed the presence of semen and human sperm on the undergarments of both the victim and the accused, providing scientific corroboration to the prosecution’s version.
One of the pivotal legal issues before the Supreme Court was whether the offence attracted the provisions of the SC/ST Act. The bench held unequivocally that the charge under Section 3(2)(v) was “clearly made out,” as the prosecution had established that the accused was aware of the victim’s caste identity prior to committing the offence.
The court observed that both the victim and her father had testified that the appellant was a neighbour and well acquainted with their family. Therefore, he was fully aware that the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste community.
Referring to its landmark judgment in Patan Jamal Vali vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, the bench reiterated that after the 2016 amendment to the SC/ST Act, it was no longer necessary for the prosecution to prove that the crime was committed solely because of the victim’s caste. Instead, the amendment reduced the threshold—mere knowledge of the victim’s caste sufficed to invoke the provision.
The judgment further invoked Section 8(c) of the SC/ST Act, which provides for a presumption that the accused knew the caste of the victim if he was personally acquainted with the victim or their family. “Given that the accused and the victim were neighbours, this presumption stands satisfied,” the court stated.
In a noteworthy observation unrelated to the core offence but significant for criminal procedure, the bench expressed disapproval of the manner in which the prosecution treated the victim’s father (PW-1) as a hostile witness. The court noted that there was no apparent justification for the prosecutor’s decision and that such practice should not become routine.
“We are at a loss to understand why the witness was treated as hostile in the first place,” the court remarked, emphasizing that cross-examining one’s own witness is an “extraordinary phenomenon.” Quoting from Sri Rabindra Kumar Dey vs. State of Orissa, the judgment stated that such permission should be granted only in “special cases” and never merely because a witness made an inadvertent statement that did not suit the prosecution’s narrative.
After a detailed review of the facts, evidence, and legal principles, the Supreme Court upheld the findings of both the trial court and the High Court. The bench concluded that the prosecution had successfully proven that the accused:
- Kidnapped the minor victim (Section 363 IPC)
- Abducted her for the purpose of sexual exploitation (Section 366 IPC)
- Committed forcible sexual intercourse (Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act)
- Threatened her with dire consequences (Section 506 IPC).
All these offences, the court noted, were committed with the knowledge that the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste, thereby justifying the life sentence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
In conclusion, the apex court dismissed the appeal, stating:
“The above discussion clearly brings out that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below.”
This ruling not only reinforces the sanctity of evidence-led convictions in sexual offences but also clarifies the scope of the 2016 amendment to the SC/ST Act, ensuring greater protection to vulnerable communities.
