Court Can’t Look Into Any Document Other Than Prosecution Records While Considering Accused's Discharge Plea: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court dismissed a Criminal Revision Petition of an accused under Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS.

The Kerala High Court held that, while considering the plea of discharge, the Court cannot look into any document other than the prosecution records, either presented by the accused or by any means which do not form part of the prosecution records.
The Court held thus in a Criminal Revision Petition filed by the accused under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), challenging the Order of the Special Judge.
A Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed, “… it is held that, while considering the plea of discharge, the Special Court has to consider the records of the case and the documents submitted therewith by the prosecution. The scope and ambit of discharge shall not be available beyond the prosecution records and the court cannot look into any document other than the prosecution records, either presented by the accused or by any other means which do not form part of the prosecution records, while considering plea of discharge.”
Advocate Dheeraj Krishnan represented the Petitioner/Accused while Public Prosecutor T.S. Jibu represented the Respondent/State.
Brief Facts
As per the prosecution story, the accused was a distant relative of the Complainant with whom she had been very close since 2018. While her mother was admitted to the hospital, he used to frequently visit her home while she was alone and allegedly promised to marry her. Consequently, he had sexual intercourse with her and thereafter, the accused told her to keep the incident secret, repeating promise of marriage. Later, he allegedly persuaded her to snap her explicit photos and forwarded them to him. Believing the promise to marry her, the Complainant obliged his request. It was further alleged that he threatened her that if she discloses the relationship with any other person, he would commit suicide.
Until June 2019, many times the accused subjected the Complainant to rape and after some time, she came to know that the marriage of the accused was fixed with another lady. Her efforts to contact him went in vain and resultantly she attempted to commit suicide. A Complaint was lodged and the crime was registered for the offence under Sections 376(2) (n) and (f) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused sought relief of discharge before the Special Court via Application under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) but the same was rejected. Hence, he was before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “In this matter, it is found by the Special Court that in the statement given by the victim, she has specifically stated that the accused herein subjected her to repeated sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage and thereafter he retracted therefrom.”
The Court added that, prima facie the sexual intercourse between the Complainant and the accused was on the basis of the promise of marriage and in such a case, the consent, if any, given by the Complainant is vitiated as dealt under Section 90 of IPC.
“On evaluation of the entire matters involved, the prosecution materials herein would prima facie show commission of the offence alleged by the accused so as to proceed further under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. as rightly found by the Special Court”, it further said.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the Order impugned dismissing the discharge plea at the instance of the Petitioner/accused does not require any interference.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Revision Petition.
Cause Title- Stephin Raj v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:567)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Dheeraj Krishnan Perot, Vineetha A.A., Fidha Navas, and Lakshmy E.
Respondent: Public Prosecutor T.S. Jibu