Kerala High Court: In an appeal revolving around whether the accused was entitled to discharge from charges under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC/ST Act’), a Single Judge Bench of A. Badharudeen, J., held that the Special Court’s order dismissing the plea of discharge did not warrant interference as the aggrieved person’s (complainant) testimony alone was sufficient to sustain the charge under the SC/ST Act, as it disclosed a prima facie case against the accused.
On 31-3-2023, during a meeting held in front of the Bharat Services Facility Management Office the accused allegedly humiliated the complainant by calling her by her caste name in public view, thereby attracting the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The accused sought discharge before the Special Court, but the plea was dismissed finding a prima facie case against the accused, thereby leading to the present appeal. The accused’s counsel contended that the statements of witnesses did not disclose any overt acts sufficient to fasten criminal culpability on the accused.
The Court noted that the complainant’s statement specifically alleged that she was abused by being called her caste name in the presence of cleaning staff, thereby fulfilling the essential ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The Court observed that to constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(r), there must be ‘an intentional insult or intimidation’ by a non-member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe against a member of such community, with the intention to humiliate within public view.
The Court opined that just because the witnesses’ statements do not disclose any overt act, 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 Court observed that the statement of the aggrieved person prima facie disclosed the ingredients for the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
The Court further observed that while considering a plea of discharge, the Court’s duty is limited to verifying whether the prosecution records disclose a prima facie case or at least a strong suspicion to frame charges. However, mere suspicion would not suffice. Applying this principle, the Court, while dismissing the appeal, concluded that the order of the Special Court did not require interference.
[Reshmi Saseendran v. State of Kerala, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 588, decided on 13-1-2026]
Editorial Note: The judgment mentions Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2018. However, in 2018 an amendment was made to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, that inserted Section 18-A to the Act of 1989. The case deals with Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) which are in the SC/ST Act of 1989 and not the Amending Act of 2018.
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Accused: P. Rahul, Roopkumar G., Abhina L., Namitha Neethu Balachandran, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor.