Legal Review and Analysis of Shivkumar @ Baleshwar Yadav vs The State of Chhattisgarh 2025 INSC 1231

1. Heading of the Judgment
Shivkumar @ Baleshwar Yadav vs. The State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No. 4502 of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 14625 of 2024), Supreme Court of India. Decided on October 14, 2025. Coram: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan.

2. Related Laws and Sections
This judgment deals with the application and interpretation of the following laws:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Sections 363 (Kidnapping), 366 (Kidnapping/Abducting woman to compel her marriage, etc.), 376 (Rape), and 506 (Criminal Intimidation).

• The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO): Section 4 (Punishment for Penetrative Sexual Assault).

• The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act): Section 3(2)(v) (Punishable with imprisonment for life for committing specified offences knowing the victim is an SC/ST member).

• The Evidence Act, 1872 / Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Section 154 / Section 157 (Cross-examination of a witness by the party who called him).

3. Basic Judgment Details
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the convict-appellant, Shivkumar. The Court upheld the concurrent decisions of the Trial Court and the Chhattisgarh High Court, which had convicted and sentenced him for multiple offences. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, along with other substantial prison terms for offences under the IPC and POCSO Act, all to run concurrently.

4. Core Principles and Analysis of the Judgment

The Supreme Court's judgment addresses several core legal issues while affirming the conviction. The core of the judgment is not merely a factual reaffirmation but also contains critical commentary on procedural and legal principles.

A. Hostile Witnesses: A Restraint on Prosecutorial Discretion
A significant part of the judgment is dedicated to criticizing the prosecution's practice of declaring witnesses as "hostile" casually.

• The Issue: The prosecution had sought and obtained permission from the Trial Court to cross-examine the victim's father (PW-1), treating him as a hostile witness. This was based on minor inconsistencies in his testimony.

• The Supreme Court's Address: The Court expressed strong disapproval of this practice. It clarified that declaring a witness hostile is an "extraordinary phenomenon" and should not be done routinely. Relying on precedents like Sri Rabindra Kumar Dey vs. State of Orissa and Gura Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, the Court laid down that:
  Permission under Section 154 of the Evidence Act should be granted only when a witness exhibits clear hostility or resiles from a material statement made earlier.
  Small or insignificant omissions or a witness speaking a truth that is "favourable to the accused" are not valid grounds for declaring them hostile.
  The trial court must exercise this discretion judiciously after scanning and weighing the circumstances, not in a casual manner.

• Analysis: The Court found that the father's testimony was largely consistent with the prosecution's case and the minor inconsistency did not warrant him being declared hostile. This part of the judgment serves as a directive to prosecutors and trial courts to be more circumspect in using this provision.

B. Determination of the Victim's Age: Reliability of School Records
The Court affirmed the methods used to prove the victim was a minor.

• The Issue: The defence challenged the proof of the victim's age, which was crucial for invoking the POCSO Act.

• The Supreme Court's Address: The Court relied on the school admission register (Article B/C) presented by the teacher (PW-9). Citing State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Lekhram, the Court reiterated that a school register is admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act as it is maintained in the discharge of a public duty. The register contained the victim's date of birth (15.09.2004), making her a minor on the date of the incident (14.05.2018). The Court found the evidence of PW-1 (father) and PW-9 (teacher) to be consistent and reliable.

• Analysis: This reaffirms the settled legal position that school records are a primary and reliable source for age determination, and oral evidence can corroborate them.

C. Applicability of the SC/ST Act: Knowledge of Caste is Sufficient
The Court extensively discussed the application of the amended SC/ST Act.

• The Issue: Whether the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was made out, requiring the crime to be committed knowing the victim's caste identity.

• The Supreme Court's Address: The Court referred to the amended Section 3(2)(v) (effective from 26.01.2016) and the judgment in Patan Jamal Vali vs. State of A.P., which held that post-amendment, the prosecution only needs to prove the accused had "knowledge" of the victim's caste, not that the crime was committed "on the ground" of her caste.
  Furthermore, the Court invoked the statutory presumption under Section 8(c) of the SC/ST Act, which states that if the accused had personal knowledge of the victim or her family, the Court shall presume he was aware of their caste identity.

• Analysis: The evidence showed the appellant was a neighbour, frequently visited the victim's house, and worked in their village. The testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 (victim), and PW-4 (grandfather) established his prior acquaintance with the family. This satisfied the "knowledge" requirement and triggered the presumption under Section 8(c), which the defence failed to rebut. This confirms a lower threshold for convicting under the SC/ST Act after the 2015 amendment.

5. Final Outcome
The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal. It held that the prosecution successfully proved all charges beyond a reasonable doubt:

• Kidnapping (Section 363 IPC).

• Kidnapping for illicit intercourse (Section 366 IPC).

• Rape (Section 376 IPC) and Penetrative Sexual Assault on a child (Section 4, POCSO Act).

• Criminal Intimidation (Section 506 IPC).

• The aggravated offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
  The conviction and sentences, including life imprisonment, were upheld. The appeal was dismissed.

6. MCQ Based on the Judgment

1. In the case of Shivkumar @ Baleshwar Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh, the Supreme Court strongly commented on the practice of declaring witnesses hostile. According to the judgment, when can a court grant permission to a party to cross-examine its own witness?
(a) Whenever the witness provides any testimony that is not perfectly consistent with their previous statement.
(b) Only when the witness exhibits clear hostility or resiles from a material statement, and the discretion is exercised judiciously by the court.
(c) As a standard procedure to test the credibility of every key witness.
(d) Only if the witness changes their entire testimony and supports the opposite party.

(b) Only when the witness exhibits clear hostility or resiles from a material statement, and the discretion is exercised judiciously by the court.

2. Regarding the application of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, what is the significance of the 2016 amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court in this judgment?
(a) It mandates that the offence must be proven to have been committed solely due to the victim's caste.
(b) It introduces a requirement for the accused to have publicly proclaimed the victim's caste during the crime.
(c) It lowers the threshold, making mere knowledge of the victim's caste by the accused sufficient for conviction.
(d) It removes the requirement of proving the accused's knowledge of caste altogether.

(c) It lowers the threshold, making mere knowledge of the victim's caste by the accused sufficient for conviction.