Victim's Statement Alone Can Sustain Charge Under SC/ST Act: Kerala High Court
K. Salma Jennath
19 Jan 2026 9:30 AM IST
The Kerala High Court in a recent decision held that an accused cannot be discharged merely because the statements of the witnesses do not disclose ingredients of the offence 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 prima facie discloses the offence, then that would be sufficient.
The Court opined that evidence of one solitary is sufficient and rejected the contention of the appellant that he is eligible for discharge since the witness statements do make out the ingredients.
It observed:
“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.”
For context, Section 3(1)(r) refers to the offence of intentional insult or intimidation of a SC/ST member by a non-member within public view whereas Section 3(1)(s) makes abuse by caste name an offence.
According to the Court, the duty of a court considering a discharge plea was to see if, prima facie, offence is made out and if not, whether there is at least a strong suspicion to frame charge.
The Court was considering an appeal filed by a person accused of the afore offences after his discharge plea before the Special Court was dismissed. The Special Court had found that prima facie case has been made out against him.
The prosecution allegation was that the accused, a non-member of SC/ST community, humiliated the de facto complainant, who was a member of the community, during a meeting by calling her caste name in the presence of the cleaning staff.
The Court referred to the essential ingredients for the offences and observed that there must be intentional insult/intimidation by a non-member of SC/ST community against a member with an intention to humiliate the latter in front of the public.
Next, it clarified the duty of a Court considering a discharge plea:
“It is a well settled law that 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.”
According to the Court, since in the present case, the de facto complainant's statement prima facie makes out the offence, there cannot be a discharge. Thus, it dismissed the appeal and refused to interfere with the impugned order.
Case No: Crl.A No. 2319 of 2025
Case Title: Reshmi Saseendran v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 32
Counsel for the appellants: P. Rahul, Roopkumar G., Abhina L., Namitha Neethu Balachandran