Absence of Casteist Allegations in First Complaint Can Justify Discharge at Charge Stage, Holds Delhi High Court - 2025-09-10

Delhi High Court Upholds Discharge of AIIMS Doctors in SC/ST Act Case, Cites 'Conspicuous Absence' of Allegations in First Complaint

New Delhi – In a significant ruling on the standards for framing charges under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Delhi High Court has upheld a trial court's decision to discharge two senior AIIMS doctors, noting that the "conspicuous absence" of specific casteist allegations in the complainant's first detailed complaint is a relevant factor for consideration at the charge stage.

Justice Amit Sharma, while dismissing an appeal filed by the complainant, affirmed that a court is not a "post office for the prosecution" and can examine material on record to determine if a prima facie case is made out, especially when subsequent statements introduce new allegations that form the core of the offence.

The bench held that contradictions going to the root of the case, such as the absence of essential ingredients of an offence in the initial complaint, can be considered by the court to assess if there is "grave suspicion" against the accused.

---

Background of the Case

The appellant, a Senior Resident doctor at AIIMS belonging to a Scheduled Caste, filed a complaint that led to an FIR against two of her senior colleagues, Dr. Vilas Samrit and Dr. Ritu Duggal, and a security guard, Manish Kumar. She alleged that on March 16, 2020, Dr. Samrit used casteist slurs, including calling her "SC" and "Kaali Billi" (black cat), humiliated her, and physically intimidated her in the hospital's OPD. She further alleged that Dr. Duggal, her superior, shouted at her and later pressured her to withdraw the complaint.

The Additional Sessions Judge discharged both senior doctors, Dr. Samrit and Dr. Duggal, finding insufficient material to frame charges under the SC/ST Act and relevant IPC sections. However, the trial court directed that the guard, Manish Kumar, would face trial for wrongful restraint and sexual harassment under Sections 341/354A of the IPC. The complainant challenged this discharge order before the High Court.

---

Key Arguments

• Appellant's Counsel: Argued that the trial court erred by conducting a mini-trial and appreciating evidence at the charge stage. They contended that any improvements or elaborations in subsequent statements, such as the one recorded under Section 164 CrPC, are a matter for trial and cannot be grounds for discharge. The failure to mention every detail in the initial complaint should not be held against the victim.

• Respondents' Counsel: Maintained that the casteist allegations were an afterthought. They highlighted that the complainant's first written complaint to the AIIMS Director on the day of the incident (March 16, 2020) made no mention of Dr. Samrit using the word "SC." They also pointed out that the chargesheet itself noted that no eyewitnesses present in the OPD supported her version of casteist remarks being made, a crucial element for the offence to be "in public view."

---

High Court's Analysis and Reasoning

Justice Sharma meticulously analyzed the progression of the complainant's statements and upheld the trial court's reasoning. The High Court's decision was anchored on two primary grounds:

1. Improvements in Subsequent Statements: The Court found it significant that the very first complaint filed by the appellant, a qualified doctor who gave a detailed account of the incident, was "bereft of any allegation with respect to commission of offence punishable under SC/ST Act." While the subject line mentioned "(Casteist)," the body of the complaint did not contain the specific slur ("Tu SC hai") that formed the basis of the charge. This allegation was introduced in later statements.

   "The fact that the first complaint made by the appellant herein did not disclose any offence punishable under the provisions of SC/ST Act assumes significance," the Court observed. It distinguished this from minor elaborations, stating that when a new allegation is added to satisfy the ingredients of an offence, it can be examined at the charge stage.

2. Lack of Corroboration and 'Public View': The Court noted that the investigation failed to find any independent witness to corroborate the allegations of casteist abuse, despite the incident occurring in a busy OPD. The chargesheet explicitly stated that doctors, nursing staff, and patients present at the scene did not support the complainant’s version of events. This undermined the crucial requirement of the offence being committed "in any place within public view."

Quoting the Supreme Court's judgment in Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh , the High Court reiterated that every insult to a member of the SC/ST community does not constitute an offence under the Act unless it is specifically targeted at the victim because of their caste.

---

Final Decision

The High Court concluded that the trial court's exercise was well within its jurisdiction to sift through the evidence to determine if a prima facie case existed. Finding no infirmity in the trial court's detailed order, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the discharge of Dr. Vilas Samrit and Dr. Ritu Duggal. The trial against the guard, Manish Kumar, for wrongful restraint and sexual harassment will proceed as directed by the trial court.