The Supreme Court of India has dismissed an appeal, upholding the conviction and life sentence of a man for the kidnapping and rape of a minor girl, and for offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the state High Court, confirming that the prosecution had successfully proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The judgment, authored by Justice Viswanathan, also made significant observations on the practice of prosecutors declaring their own witnesses as hostile, stating that such permission should be granted only in “special cases” and not in a “casual or routine manner.”
Background of the Case
The case originated from a report lodged on May 14, 2018, by the victim’s father (PW-1) at a police station in Chhattisgarh. He stated that his minor daughter had gone missing on the evening of May 10, 2018, and expressed suspicion that the appellant had lured her away.
Following an investigation, the victim was recovered, and it was revealed that the appellant had abducted her on the promise of marriage and subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse. Consequently, charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 363 (kidnapping), 366 (kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.), 376 (rape), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. As the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste, a charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was also added.
The Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Surajpur, convicted the appellant on October 22, 2019, sentencing him to life imprisonment for the offence under the SC/ST Act, and concurrent sentences of up to 10 years for the other offences. The conviction was subsequently upheld by the state High Court on June 16, 2023, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court conducted a thorough review of the evidence on record, including the testimonies of key witnesses.
Victim’s Testimony: The Court found the testimony of the victim (PW-2) to be clear and categorical. She deposed that the appellant, who was known to her, grabbed her, threatened to kill her, and took her to a forest where he forcibly committed sexual intercourse. The Court noted that her deposition was corroborated in material particulars by her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Proof of Age: The victim’s status as a minor was established through the testimony of her school teacher (PW-9) and the school’s admission register. The register showed her date of birth as September 15, 2004, making her a minor on the date of the incident (May 14, 2018). The Court, citing its decision in State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Lekhram, affirmed that a school register is admissible evidence to prove date of birth.
Medical Evidence: The medical examination conducted by Dr. Suchita Nirmala Kindo (PW-10) revealed a cut injury on the victim’s hymen, indicating forceful intercourse. Furthermore, the forensic report confirmed the presence of semen and human sperm on the undergarments of both the victim and the accused.
Applicability of the SC/ST Act: The Court held that the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was clearly attracted. It relied on the testimony of the victim (PW-2) and her father, which established that the appellant knew of their Scheduled Caste status prior to the incident. The judgment highlighted that the offence took place after the 2016 amendment to the Act. The Court observed, “In Patan Jamal Vali vs. State of A.P., this Court noticed the amendment made to the Act and held that post the amendment, the threshold of proving that the crime was committed on the basis of the caste identity was decreased and mere knowledge of the caste of the victim was sufficient to sustain the conviction.”
The Court also invoked the presumption under Section 8(c) of the SC/ST Act, which states that if the accused had personal knowledge of the victim or their family, the court shall presume the accused was aware of their caste identity. The evidence established that the appellant was a neighbour and was well acquainted with the victim’s family.
Observations on ‘Hostile’ Witnesses: The Supreme Court expressed its disapproval of the public prosecutor treating the victim’s father (PW-1) as a hostile witness without sufficient grounds. The judgment noted, “We are at a loss to understand as to why the witness was treated as hostile in the first place?”
Citing its previous ruling in Sri Rabindra Kumar Dey Vs. State of Orissa, the Court reiterated that “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 emphasized that a witness cannot be declared hostile “merely because a witness in an unguarded moment speaks the truth which may not suit the prosecution.”
Decision
In its concluding remarks, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution had successfully established its case. The judgment stated, “The above discussion clearly brings out the fact that the victim was kidnapped (Section 363 IPC), for the purpose of illicit intercourse (Section 366 IPC), was subjected to forcible intercourse (Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO), criminal intimidation (Section 506 IPC) and all this with the knowledge that the victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste (Section 3(2)(v), of the SC/ST Act).”
Finding no reason to interfere with the concurrent judgments of the lower courts, the appeal was dismissed.
