Victim’s testimony enough to frame charge under SC/ST Act: Kerala HC

Kochi: In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court has held that an accused cannot be discharged solely because the statements of other witnesses do not reveal the ingredients of offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2018.

Justice A Badharudheen clarified that if the statement of the aggrieved person, on its own, prima facie discloses the offence, that would be adequate to proceed. The Court observed that the law does not require multiple witnesses, and the testimony of a single, wholly reliable witness can be sufficient. It rejected the appellant’s argument that he deserved discharge since the witness statements did not support the prosecution case.

The Court noted:
“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.”

Section 3(1)(r) deals with intentional insult or intimidation of a member of the SC/ST community by a non-member in public view, while Section 3(1)(s) criminalises abuse by caste name.

The High Court explained that while examining a discharge application, the court’s role is to determine whether a prima facie case exists or whether there is at least a strong suspicion warranting the framing of charges.

The ruling came in an appeal filed by a person accused of these offences, after the Special Court rejected his discharge plea, finding that a prima facie case was made out.

The prosecution alleged that the accused, who does not belong to the SC/ST community, insulted the complainant during a meeting by calling her by her caste name in the presence of cleaning staff.

Reiterating settled legal principles, the Court stated:
“It is a well-settled law that while considering a 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 observed that the de facto complainant's statement prima facie makes out the offence in the present case. Hence, the court dismissed the appeal seeking discharge of offences and refused to interfere with the impugned order.
(With Live Law inputs)