Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen dismissed an accused’s challenge to the trial court’s refusal to discharge her from charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2018, holding that discharge cannot be granted solely because statements of some witnesses may not set out the offence’s elements. The case concerns an allegation that, during a workplace meeting held in an open area, the accused humiliated the complainant by using her caste name in the presence of others, amounting to caste-based insult in public view. The Court held that where the aggrieved person’s statement prima facie discloses the offence, that can be sufficient at the discharge stage and found no reason to interfere with the order declining discharge.

The appellant, described as the sole accused, filed a criminal appeal challenging the dismissal of her discharge petition by the Special Court for the trial of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2018.

Also Read: Custody Of One Child With Husband Not A Ground To Avoid Maintaining Wife And Minor Child Living With Her: Delhi High Court

The allegation recorded is that at 4:00 p.m. on 31/03/2023, during a meeting held in an open space in front of the Bharat Services Facility Management Office on the ground floor of the Trans Asia Cyber Park building near Infopark Phase-2, Padathikkara, Puthencruze Village, the accused humiliated the defacto complainant by calling her by her caste name in public view, attracting offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2018.

Before the Special Court, the appellant sought discharge from the said offences, and the Special Judge dismissed the plea, noting a prima facie case. In the appeal, the appellant’s counsel relied on the statements of the defacto complainant and witness No.2, and contended that witness No.2 did not state overt acts to fasten culpability, though allegations were found in the defacto complainant’s statement. The record also refers to materials produced as annexures, including a certified copy of the FIR with the first information statement, relevant pages of the final report, statements of witnesses recorded during investigation, and the discharge petition.

The Court recorded the allegation as: “the accused humiliated the defacto complainant by calling her by her caste name in public view”. On the defacto complainant’s statement, the Court stated: “there is specific allegation that at about 04:00 p.m. on 31/03/2023, the accused abused her by calling her caste name in the presence of the cleaning staffs of Bharath Services Facility Management Office.”

While referring to what is required to constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(r), the Court stated: “In order to bring home an offence under Section 3(1)(r), there must be “an intentional insult or intimidation” by non-member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe against a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, that too with intention to humiliate such member within public view.”

On the application of those ingredients to the material before it, the Court stated: “Infact, the above statement of the defacto complainant would show the above ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act 2018.”

On the contention regarding the other statements, the Court recorded: “According to the learned counsel for the appellant, in the statement of the second witness and other witnesses, no such discloses are available.”

The Court stated: “However, 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.” It further stated: “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.”

Also Read: Petroleum Storage Licence Auto-Cancels On Lease Expiry, No Hearing Required; Kerala High Court

On the approach at the discharge stage, the Court stated: “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 directed: “Keeping the above principle in mind, the order impugned is gone through, the same does not require any interference. In the result, the Crl.Appeal is dismissed as above.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Sri. P. Rahul, Shri. Roopkumar G., Smt. Abhina L., Smt. Namitha Neethu Balachandran

Case Title: Reshmi Saseendran v State of Kerala and Sheeja T.K
Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:2587
Case Number: CRL.A NO. 2319 OF 2025
Bench: Justice A. Badharudeen