The court established that sufficient evidence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act existed to warrant prosecution, thus upholding the dismissal of the discharge petition, emphasizing the shift to knowledge of caste over motive.

JUDGMENT :

K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1525 of 2023, dated 07.08.2025 in Spl.S.C.No.21 of 2022 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court for PCR Act Cases, Madurai, in dismissing the petition for discharge filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.

2.The appellant is the second accused in Spl.S.C.No.21 of 2022 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court for PCR Act Cases, Madurai.

3. The case of the prosecution is :

a) The defacto complainant, who was in love with the deceased Muthukumar, married him in the year 2014 and they were blessed with a boy, who is now studying 2^nd standard in a Matriculation School, at Sengundram. The deceased Muthukumar was doing welding work at Sai Engineering Welding Works Company near Keerathurai bus stop. The complainant's husband used to go in the morning and return by 07.00 pm after completing his work.

b) On 14.06.2021, the complainant's husband as usual went to work and since he did not return by 07.00 pm, the complainant contacted her husband's employer Senthil, who in turn replied that the said Mutukumar left the work place by 07.00 pm itself and the complainant immediately contacted her in-laws and all of them made a search and at about 11.30 pm, they found the body of the deceased Muthukumar at Om Muruga Nagar Road, behind seemakaruvelam bushes with serious injuries.

c) The complainant lodged a complaint suspecting that her husband was murdered by some persons due to previous enmity. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, who is the third respondent herein, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.674 of 2021 on 15.06.2021 against unknown persons for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

d) After initial investigation, the respondent police came to know that the first accused Vijay @ Esal, who was working in the same welding company had enmity with the deceased as the deceased was making complaints against him to the employer often and that the first accused along with his friends, accused 2 to 6 entered into a conspiracy to kill the said Muthukumar and in pursuance of the same, when the deceased Muthukumar was returning after completing his work, he was waylaid and attacked and as a result of serious injuries caused, he died on the spot and on that basis, the prosecution altered the case from 302 IPC into for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 307 and 302 IPC.

4. According to the prosecution, since the first respondent came to know that the deceased was belonging to Hindu Pallar community, he altered the case for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 307, 120(B), 302 r/w 34 IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act 2015. After completing the investigation, the first respondent filed a final report against six accused persons including the appellant herein and the same was taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.21 of 2022 and is pending on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court for PCR Act Cases, Madurai.

5. When the sessions case was pending for framing of charges, the second accused filed an application invoking Section 227 of Cr.P.C., seeking discharge from the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Act.

6. The petitioner, in the discharge petition, has alleged that there is no prima facie case for making out an offence under the provisions of SC/ST (PoA) Act; that the committal Court, without considering and weighing the materials, committed the case to the Special Court mechanically and that if the Special Court proceeds with the case further, the same wo