The court affirmed that a solitary credible witness's testimony can suffice to establish a prima facie case under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2018.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. The sole accused in SC No.1912/2023 on the files of the Special Court for the trial of offences under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2018, (for short ‘SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2018’) has filed this criminal appeal challenging the order in Crl. M.P. No.901 of 2025 in SC No.1912 of 2023 dated 10.11.2025 aggrieved by the dismissal of the discharge petition filed by the appellant before the Special Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Kerala. Though notice has been served upon the second respondent, he did not appear.

3. The gist of the allegation 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, situated 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, thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2018.

4. The appellant sought discharge before the Special Court from the said offences. But the learned Special Judge dismissed the plea of discharge finding prima facie case against the appellant/accused.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant assailed the order primarily relying on the statements of the defacto complainant as well as witness No.2 and argued that in the statement of witness No.2, no overt acts to fasten criminal culpability on the appellant have been stated, though in the statement of the defacto complainant such allegations are found.

6. On perusal of the statement of the defacto complainant produced as Annexure A1, 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. In this connection, it is apposite to refer the essential ingredients to constitute the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2018. 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. Analogously ‘abusing’ any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe community by his caste name within public view by a non-member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribe community would attract offence under Sections 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2018. 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. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, in the statement of the second witness and other witnesses, no such discloses are available. 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. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.