Mere Omission In FIS To Mention Caste Abuse Not Ground For Discharge When Allegation Appears In Subsequent Statements: Kerala High Court
The High Court held that discharge cannot be granted merely because the First Information Statement does not mention caste-based abuse, where later statements of victims specifically contain such allegations, and the prosecution materials disclose a prima facie case.
Justice A. Badharudeen, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court held that the mere omission in the First Information Statement (FIS) to state that the accused called the victim by caste name is not a valid ground for discharge, especially when such allegations are clearly reflected in subsequent statements recorded during the investigation.
The Court dismissed an appeal filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, affirming the Special Court’s refusal to discharge the accused in a case involving allegations of criminal trespass, assault, and caste-based abuse.
A Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen upheld the Special Court’s finding, and observed: “On perusal of the grounds urged for discharge, it has to be observed that mere omission in the FIS, to state calling of caste name itself is not a ground for granting discharge, especially when the additional statements recorded as that of the victims would reveal such allegations”.
Background
The prosecution case arose from an alleged incident involving criminal trespass, assault, intimidation, and caste-based abuse stemming from a boundary dispute between neighbouring families. According to the prosecution, the accused trespassed into the complainants’ courtyard, assaulted them, abused one victim by uttering her caste name, threatened them with a weapon, and caused property damage.
The appellants, who were arrayed as accused, sought discharge contending that the allegations were fabricated and motivated by civil disputes, that statements of witnesses contained contradictions, that neighbours did not support the prosecution's version, and that the allegation of caste abuse was absent in the initial statement and later introduced as an afterthought to attract provisions of the SC/ST Act.
They also argued that earlier investigation reports had excluded them as accused and that their subsequent implication showed mala fides.
Court’s Observation
The Court first examined the legal principles governing discharge. It reiterated that while considering such a plea, the court must read the prosecution records as a whole to determine whether they disclose a prima facie case or at least a strong suspicion warranting trial.
The Court observed that a strong suspicion emerging from the materials is sufficient to proceed to trial, and discharge is justified only where the allegations do not disclose any offence.
Applying this test, the Court rejected the appellants’ principal contention that omission of caste abuse allegations in the FIS invalidated the prosecution case.
The Court further observed that contradictions or inconsistencies in witness statements are matters for cross-examination during trial and cannot form the basis for discharge at the preliminary stage. It similarly held that allegations of false implication arising from civil disputes cannot justify discharge when prosecution records prima facie disclose commission of offences.
The Bench also noted that the accused had previously sought quashing of proceedings before the High Court, which had been declined, and they had been directed to raise their contentions at the discharge stage.
Addressing the argument based on multiple investigation reports, the Court held that when more than one report exists, the trial court must consider them together, and in the present case, the Special Judge had in fact referred to both reports before dismissing the discharge petition.
The Court concluded that the prosecution materials, taken at face value, disclosed prima facie commission of offences and therefore the plea for discharge could not succeed.
Conclusion
Holding that the Special Court correctly applied the law governing discharge and that the materials on record disclosed a triable case, the High Court affirmed the impugned order and dismissed the appeal. It further directed the trial court to expedite the trial and complete it within four months from receipt of the judgment.
Cause Title: Rakesh & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:8061)
Appearances
Appellants: George Varghese (Perumpallikuttiyil), Manu Srinath, Lijo John Thampy, Nivedita Muchilote, Riyaz M.B., Jinsu M. Jais, Advocates.
Respondents: Public Prosecutor Anima M.; Sanil Kunjachan, Priyanka M.D., Rishi Chandran, Advocates.