Victim’s Statement Alone Sufficient To Deny Discharge Under SC-ST Act: Kerala High Court

An appeal was filed by an accused whose discharge plea had been rejected by the Special Court constituted under the SC/ST Act. The Special Court had concluded that the materials on record disclosed a prima facie case against the accused, warranting the framing of charges.

A Bench of Justice A. Badharudheen clarified that if the statement of the aggrieved person itself prima facie reveals the commission of the offence, that alone would be sufficient to proceed with the case. The Court held, “that by itself would not be a ground to discharge the accused as law does not insist plenty of witnesses to prove an offence and the evidence of a solitary wholly reliable witness would suffice the purpose. The mere statement of the aggrieved person would prima facie disclose the ingredients for the offences under Section 3(1) (r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2018.”

Advocates P.Rahul appeared for the Petitioner.

Rejecting the appellant’s contention that he was entitled to discharge because the statements of other witnesses did not establish the essential ingredients of the offences, the Court stated that such an argument is legally untenable.

Section 3(1)(r) criminalises the intentional insult or intimidation of a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe by a non-member, with the intent to humiliate the victim in a place within public view. Section 3(1)(s) specifically deals with abusing a member of the SC/ST community by referring to their caste name.

The High Court further said that while a mere conjecture or weak suspicion is insufficient, the court is not expected to conduct a detailed evaluation of evidence or assess its credibility at this preliminary stage.

According to the prosecution, the accused, who did not belong to the SC/ST community, had humiliated the de facto complainant, a member of the SC/ST community during a meeting by addressing her using her caste name in the presence of cleaning staff. The High Court examined the essential ingredients of the alleged offences and reiterated that what is required is an intentional act of insult or intimidation by a non-member, directed against a member of the SC/ST community, with the intent to humiliate the victim in public view.

The Court observed, “It is a well settled law that while considering plea of discharge, the duty of the Court is to verify the prosecution records to see whether prima facie the offence/offences is/are made out or atleast a strong suspicion to frame charge, though a mere suspicion would not suffice the requirement.”

The Court found that the statement of the de facto complainant clearly disclosed, at least prima facie, the commission of the alleged offences. Consequently, the High Court held that no ground for discharge was made out and refused to interfere with the order of the Special Court.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: Reshmi Saseendran v. State of Kerala & Anr., [2026:KER:2587]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates P.Rahul, Roopkumar G., Abhina L., Namitha Neethu Balachandran