In a significant ruling that reinforced protection for minor victims under POCSO and SC/ST laws, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 14, 2025) upheld the conviction and life sentence of Shivkumar alias Baleshwar Yadav from Chhattisgarh for the rape and abduction of a minor girl. The bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice B.V. Nagarathna dismissed the appeal, observing that there was no ground to interfere with concurrent findings of the lower courts.
“The victim’s testimony is consistent, credible, and well supported by medical and documentary evidence,” the bench remarked during pronouncement.
Background
The case dates back to May 2018, when the father of the 14-year-old girl lodged a complaint at Pratappur Police Station in Surajpur district, reporting that his daughter had gone missing after dinner. The police investigation revealed that the accused, a local labourer familiar with the family, had lured the minor with promises of marriage and later forcibly committed sexual assault.
The trial court convicted him under multiple sections-363 (kidnapping), 366 (abduction), 376 (rape), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. His conviction and sentence-life imprisonment under the SC/ST Act-were upheld by the Chhattisgarh High Court in 2023.
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, the Supreme Court went beyond the immediate facts to make broader observations on how prosecutors handle witnesses. The bench expressed dismay that the victim’s father (PW-1) had been unnecessarily treated as hostile during the trial.
“We are at a loss to understand why the witness was treated as hostile in the first place,” the bench noted. “Permission to cross-examine one’s own witness is an extraordinary step and should not be done casually.”
Citing earlier judgments, including Sri Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa (1976) and Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2001), the Court emphasized that minor discrepancies or omissions do not justify labeling a witness as hostile.
The bench also reaffirmed the evidentiary value of school records in establishing the victim’s age. The headmaster’s testimony and admission register confirmed the girl’s date of birth as 15 September 2004, making her a minor at the time of the offence.
Further, medical examination supported the victim’s statement-there was fresh injury on the hymen and presence of semen confirmed by forensic tests.
On the issue of caste-based offence, the bench highlighted that Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, after the 2016 amendment, requires only proof that the accused knew the victim’s caste, not that the assault was motivated by caste bias. “The evidence clearly shows that the accused was aware of the girl’s caste, as he was a neighbour and well-acquainted with her family,” Justice Viswanathan said.
Decision
Finding the testimony of the survivor “truthful and unshaken,” the Court ruled that all charges were duly proved. The justices maintained that no interference was warranted with the trial and High Court judgments.
“The evidence leaves no room for doubt the victim was kidnapped, threatened, and sexually assaulted with full knowledge of her caste status,” the bench concluded, dismissing the appeal.
With that, Shivkumar @ Baleshwar Yadav’s conviction and life sentence stand confirmed, bringing the case to a close seven years after the incident.
Case: Shivkumar @ Baleshwar Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 4502 of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl) No. 14625 of 2024)
Date of Judgment: 14 October 2025