Pranav B Prem

In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court clarified that trial courts are restricted to considering only the prosecution's materials when deciding on discharge pleas filed by accused persons in criminal cases. Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment in Stephin Raj v. State of Kerala, emphasizing the limited scope of discharge under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

Court’s Observation on Discharge Pleas

Justice Badharudeen observed that the discharge stage is not meant for examining evidence beyond the materials submitted by the prosecution. The court stated: "The Special Court has to consider the records of the case and the documents submitted therewith by the prosecution. 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 the plea of discharge."

The ruling came in response to a revision petition filed by an accused, Stephin Raj, challenging the Fast-Track Special Court's decision to dismiss his discharge application. The petitioner is accused of repeatedly raping a woman under a false promise of marriage and was charged under Sections 376(2)(n) and 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Facts of the Case

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, a distant relative of the complainant, repeatedly engaged in sexual intercourse with her under the pretense of marriage. Later, it was revealed that the petitioner was set to marry another woman. This led the complainant to lodge a police complaint, citing betrayal and emotional distress. The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and submitted a complaint allegedly lodged by the complainant before the Yuvajana Commission, admitting the consensual nature of their relationship. He contended that the trial court erred in dismissing his discharge plea without considering this document.

High Court’s Decision

Rejecting the petitioner’s contentions, the High Court upheld the trial court's view that the materials submitted by the prosecution prima facie indicated that the accused had committed the alleged offenses. The court noted that the complainant’s statement under Section 164 CrPC substantiated the prosecution’s claim that consent, if given, was vitiated by the accused’s false promise of marriage, as per Section 90 IPC.

The High Court also addressed the petitioner’s argument regarding the Yuvajana Commission complaint, clarifying that such documents, not forming part of the prosecution records, cannot be considered at the discharge stage. The court referenced earlier judgments, reiterating that discharge pleas must be evaluated solely on the basis of prosecution materials.

The judgment reaffirmed established rules regarding discharge pleas, including:

1. The trial court must assume the prosecution's materials to be true and evaluate them to determine whether a prima facie case exists.
2. The defense of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
3. The probative value or sufficiency of evidence is not to be assessed during discharge proceedings.
4. A strong suspicion against the accused, based on prosecution materials, is sufficient to frame charges and proceed with the trial.

The court further emphasized that the objective of the discharge stage is to weed out baseless accusations and not to conduct a mini-trial. Dismissing the revision petition, the High Court upheld the Fast-Track Special Court's decision to proceed with the trial.

Cause Title: Stephin Raj v. State of Kerala

Case No: Crl. Rev. Petition 1120 of 2024

Date: January-06-2025

Bench: Justice A. Badharudeen

[Read/Download order]