Uncorroborated Testimony Of Single Witness Insufficient To Sustain SC/ST Act Charges If Absent In Complainant’s Initial Statements: Delhi High Court

In the matter, an alleged incident occurred on August 16, 2021, at Lakshmibai College, University of Delhi, where the Petitioner, an Associate Professor in-charge of the Hindi Department, and the Respondent No. 2, also an Associate Professor, were involved in an altercation. During a departmental meeting regarding NAAC accreditation, a dispute erupted when the Respondent No. 2 refused to sign the minutes without a detailed reading. The Petitioner allegedly slapped the Respondent No. 2 and snatched the register, leading to a physical and verbal spat in the presence of other faculty members.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed, “The statement of a single witness attributing specific casteist remarks, which the Complainant herself never once specifically corroborated, cannot form the basis of a charge under the SC/ST Act”.

“For an offence to be made out under Section 3 of SC/ST Act, it is essential that the alleged act must have been committed with the intent to humiliate the victim, specifically on account of her caste identity. It is not sufficient that the Complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste and that she was subjected to ill-treatment or a physical altercation. The nexus between the alleged act and the caste identity of the victim, must be clearly and unequivocally established from the very face of the Complaint. The genesis of the present dispute, as is evident even from the Complainant’s own initial Complaints, was an administrative disagreement over signing of the minutes of the meeting”, it further noted.

Senior Advocate N. Hariharan appeared for the petitioner and Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC appeared for the respondent.

Procedurally, the Complainant initially filed handwritten and typed complaints on the day of the incident with both the College Principal and the Police, alleging physical assault under Section 323 IPC. Crucially, these initial reports contained no mention of casteist remarks.

It was only in subsequent complaints dated August 17 and August 19, 2021, and a final FIR registered on August 23, 2021, that allegations of caste-based humiliation were introduced. The Petitioner subsequently moved the High Court under Article 226 and Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the FIR.

In its reasoning, the Court noted that only one witness out of several present attributed specific derogatory caste terms to the Petitioner, a version that the Complainant herself did not specifically corroborate in her Section 164 CrPC statement.

“Pertinently, it is the statement of Dr. Poonam Rani recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 20.09.2021 that is the sole source of any specific casteist remarks allegedly made by the Petitioner. She alone attributes the words “You bhangi, chamar, what will you do to me? You quota people have spoiled the entire atmosphere of the college” to the Petitioner. No other witness examined attributes any such specific casteist remark to the Petitioner. Dr. Poonam Rani stands alone in this regard, uncorroborated by any other eyewitness to the incident”, the Bench noted.

“As regards the offences under Sections 323 and 504 IPC, both are non-cognizable offences. The FIR could not have been registered for these offences without an order of the learned Magistrate as mandated under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. The FIR, therefore, cannot sustain itself on the basis of these offences either. Furthermore, NCR No. 0047/2021 under Section 323 IPC, has already been registered on the same day of the incident in question i.e. 16.08.2021. The Complainant is at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy in accordance with law, in respect of these allegations”, the Bench further noted.

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR registered at P.S. Bharat Nagar, however, it noted that the Complainant remains at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies regarding the alleged physical assault under the previously registered Non-Cognizable Report (NCR).

Cause Title: Ranjit Kaur v. State N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:2700]

Appearances:

Petitioner: N. Hariharan, Sr. Advocate, Vaibhav Sharma, Urvashi Sharma and Vinayak Gautam, Advocates.

Respondent: Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC for State, Pooja Roy, Advocate, ACP Garima Tiwari, Insp. Yashwant and SI Sonal Raj.

Click here to read/download the Judgment