Supreme Court of India· 14 October 2025

Under Section 8(c) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, what is presumed about an accused's knowledge of a victim's caste, and how can that presumption be displaced?

Shivkumar @ Baleshwar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.4502 OF 2025 · CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.4502 OF 2025
Coram: K. V. Viswanathan; B.V. Nagarathna

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.3(2)(v), s.8(c) Scheduled Cast…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

Where the accused had personal knowledge of the victim or the victim's family, the Court shall presume that the accused was aware of the caste or tribal identity of the victim, unless the contrary is proved; prior familiarity with the family, such as being a neighbour who frequently visited the house, is sufficient to raise the presumption under Section 3(2)(v) of the parent Act.

Headnote

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.154 — Hostile witness — Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s.3(2)(v), s.8(c) — Presumption of knowledge of caste — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.154 — Declaring a witness hostile — Only in special cases — Held: A small or insignificant omission from an earlier statement is not enough to declare a witness hostile; there must be material to show the witness bears hostile animus or is not speaking the truth. Being declared hostile does not completely efface a witness's evidence, and a conviction may still rest on such testimony if it is corroborated by other reliable evidence on the record. (¶9, 12) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s.3(2)(v), s.8(c) — Presumption of knowledge of caste — Conviction affirmed — Held further: Under Section 8(c) of the Amendment Act, 2015, personal knowledge of the victim or the victim's family raises a presumption that the accused was aware of the victim's caste, unless the contrary is proved. Where such acquaintance stood established and nothing was brought on record to rebut the presumption, Section 3(2)(v) of the Act stood attracted, and finding no good reason to interfere with the concurrent conviction, the appeal was dismissed. (¶23, 24, 26)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 23Further, Section 8 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 reads as under:-

Paragraph 24Section 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. In the present case, 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. PW-1 categorically stated that the accused was their neighbour and used to frequently visit their house, which initially made him suspicious that he might have been involved in the abduction of his daughter. PW-2 (Victim) further affirmed that the accused knew her caste even before the incident. Similarly, PW-4 (Grandfather) in cross- examination confirmed that the accused used to come to their village and work as a labourer. These consistent statements of the prosecution witnesses collectively demonstrate that the accused had prior familiarity with the family and knowledge of their caste, which satisfies the requirement under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. Nothing has been brought on record to rebut the presumption and as such, we are fully convinced that even Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act is clearly attracted.

Acts & Sections

s.3(2)(v), s.8(c) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989s.4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012ss.363, 366, 376, 506 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.154 Indian Evidence Act, 1872s.164 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Shivkumar @ Baleshwar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, on what basis can a court permit the prosecution to cross-examine its own witness by declaring the witness hostile?Does declaring a prosecution witness hostile under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 mean his evidence can no longer be relied upon at all?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections