Mere Knowledge of Victim's Caste Is Enough to Attract SC/ST Act: Supreme Court Affirms Life Sentence for Rape of Dalit Minor

“There Is No Need to Prove Caste-Based Motive When Accused Is Acquainted with Victim’s Identity,” On 14 October 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment, upholding the life sentence and concurrent convictions imposed upon the appellant for the kidnapping and rape of a 13-year-old Dalit girl, along with charges under the POCSO Act and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The Court decisively rejected the appellant’s plea that absence of caste-based animus rendered Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act inapplicable, observing:

“Section 8(c) of the SC/ST Act clearly indicates that the acquaintance of the accused with the family of the victim is enough to presume that the accused was aware of the caste and identity of the victim, unless proved otherwise.”

“Victim's Testimony Alone Can Sustain Conviction — Especially in Cases Involving Minor Girls”

The Bench found the victim’s testimony to be consistent, categorical, and corroborated both by her Section 164 CrPC statement and medical evidence. She described how the accused, known to her family, abducted her under threat near her grandfather’s home and forcibly committed sexual intercourse in a forested area.

Justice Viswanathan wrote: “She was subjected to a searching cross-examination, yet nothing was elicited to dilute her testimony.”

The Court reiterated the principle that a prosecutrix's sole testimony, when credible, forms sufficient basis for conviction, especially in cases involving minors under the POCSO Act. The girl's minority rendered any alleged “consent” legally meaningless.

“Proof of Age Through School Register Acceptable — Birth Certificate or Ossification Test Not Mandatory”

The prosecution proved the victim's age using the school admission register, produced by the head teacher (PW-9), which recorded her date of birth as 15.09.2004. She had enrolled in Class I in 2011 and left after Class V in 2016, establishing that she was below 14 years on the date of the incident, 14 May 2018.

Citing State of Chhattisgarh v. Lekhram, the Court held: “The admission register is maintained in the ordinary course of school’s function and reflects reliable evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act.”

The Bench concluded:

“The evidence of the father PW-1, the evidence of PW-9 and the school admission register inspires confidence in us to hold that the victim…was a minor.”

“Fresh Bleeding from Hymen Confirms Forceful Intercourse — FSL Report Confirms Presence of Semen on Underwears”

Medical evidence furnished by Dr. Suchita Nirmala Kindo (PW-10) found a cut injury on the hymen at 6 o'clock position, with fresh bleeding, strongly indicating recent forceful penetration. The Court highlighted:

“In her opinion, that would indicate that forceful intercourse was committed.”

Furthermore, forensic lab tests (FSL) confirmed presence of human semen and sperm on both the victim’s and accused’s underwear and on the vaginal swab slides. The Court validated the chain of custody of the exhibits and concluded:

“The forensic findings corroborate ocular testimony and exclude hypothesis of false implication.”

“Court Slams Casual Declaring of Witnesses as Hostile — Judicial Discretion Must Be Exercised With Restraint”

The Court took serious exception to the trial prosecutor’s declaration of the victim’s father (PW-1) as a hostile witness, despite his overall corroboration of the events.

The Bench warned:

“We are frequently coming across cases where the prosecutor, for no ostensible reason, wants to treat the witnesses hostile and the Court indiscriminately grants permission.”

Quoting Sri Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa and Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, the judgment clarified:

“The contingency of cross-examining the witness by the party calling is an extraordinary phenomenon… Small or insignificant omissions cannot be the basis for treating the witness as hostile.”

Even after being wrongly declared hostile, PW-1’s testimony was accepted as partly corroborative, especially in identifying the accused as someone who frequented their home.

“SC/ST Act Post-2016 Amendment Shifts the Legal Threshold — Caste-Based Intention Is No Longer Required”

Addressing a critical point of law, the Supreme Court clarified the interpretative shift brought by the 2016 amendment to Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. Prior to amendment, conviction required that the offence be committed "on the ground" of the victim's caste. Post-amendment, it is enough if the accused committed the offence "knowing that the victim is a member of a Scheduled Caste".

The Court noted: “The evidence on record clearly establishes that the accused was well acquainted with the victim and her family prior to the incident and was fully aware of their caste status.”

“Not Just a Register Entry — It’s Legal Proof of Age”: Court Accepts School Record as Conclusive

To determine that the victim was a minor, the prosecution relied on the school admission register, produced and authenticated by PW-9, a school teacher. The register recorded the victim’s date of birth as 15.09.2004, making her 13 years old at the time of the offence (14.05.2018).

The Bench reiterated the legal position:

“School records maintained in the regular course of duties are public documents and admissible under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. No birth certificate or ossification test is required when such records exist and are unchallenged.”

“Not Every Disagreement is Hostility”: Court Cautions Against Casual Use of ‘Hostile Witness’ Tag

The Bench expressed strong disapproval of the prosecution’s decision to declare the victim’s father (PW-1) as hostile, despite his overall corroboration of the incident and suspicion towards the accused.

“Courts must exercise restraint in declaring a witness hostile. Minor contradictions or non-recollection cannot justify such a declaration. This is an extraordinary power, not to be exercised casually,” the judgment emphasized.

Citing Sri Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa and Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, the Court affirmed that even hostile witnesses may offer credible, admissible evidence.

"Amendment Has Changed the Game": Court Applies New Threshold Under SC/ST Act

One of the pivotal elements of this case was the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, which after the 2016 amendment, no longer requires proof that the offence was committed because the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste — just proving that the accused knew the victim’s caste is enough.

“The accused was from the same village, knew the family, frequently visited their home. There is no doubt that he knew her caste. The presumption under Section 8(c) applies, and there is nothing to rebut it,” the Court said, applying the principles laid down in Patan Jamal Vali v. State of A.P.

“All Ingredients Met, All Convictions Stand”: Appeal Dismissed

“The sentence of life imprisonment under the SC/ST Act will run concurrently with other sentences. There is no perversity in the findings. The appeal has no merit. It is dismissed,” the judgment concluded.

• Victim’s credible testimony can form the sole basis for conviction in sexual offences.

• School admission registers are legally admissible proof of age under Section 35 Evidence Act.

• The 2016 amendment to the SC/ST Act makes knowledge of caste, not caste-based motive, sufficient for conviction.

• Forensic and medical evidence, when properly collected and preserved, play a crucial corroborative role.

• Courts and prosecutors must use caution when declaring a witness hostile, especially family members.

Date of Decision: 14 October 2025