The court upheld that contradictions in witness statements and allegations of fabrication do not warrant discharge from prosecution if prima facie evidence exists, affirming the necessity of trial.

JUDGMENT

Dated, this the 29^th day of January, 2026

The order dated 25.10.2024 in Crl.M.P. No. 3430 of 2024 in S.C.No. 575 of 2014 on the files of the Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Alappuzha, is under challenge in this appeal filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'SC/ST (PoA) Act' hereinafter).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents 2 and 3, who are the aggrieved persons.

3. In this case, at present, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 447 , 323, 324, 354, 294(b), 506(ii) and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, by the accused persons.

4. The prosecution case is that, on the premise of a prior boundary dispute with CW1, who belongs to the Hindu-Tandan Community (a Scheduled Caste), and his wife, a member of the Hindu-Ezhava Community, the accused, who is a member of the Hindu-Nair Community, (not either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe) criminally trespassed at the courtyard of their residence, Mangalathu Kizhakkathil House (House No. 267 of Chettikulangara Panchayat in Koippalli Karazhma Muri, Peringala Village) at 8:45 p.m., on 21.11.2011, with intent to cause bodily injury to him. The prosecution asserts that the first accused uttered abusive language towards CW1 and repeatedly struck him on the back and leg with a Gliricidia stick. Concomitantly, the second accused verbally abused CW1 by calling his caste name in a derogatory way and threatened to kill both CW1 and CW2, by swinging a chopper towards, CW1 and caused injury on the left side of his head. The second accused then struck CW2, kicked her in the back, placed the chopper against her neck, and repeated utterance to kill her. The third as well as the fourth accused forcibly grabbed on the hair of CW2 and dragged her across the ground. Subsequently, all accused took stones from the road, thrown on the windows of the residence of CW1 and CW2, which resulted in breakage of the glass and caused financial loss to them. Thus the prosecution case.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that there are reasons to interfere with the order dismissing the discharge petition filed by the appellants/ accused Nos. 2 and 4 herein and it is submitted that, as per Annexure A5 report, the appellants/accused Nos. 2 and 4 were removed by the then investigating officer, though he reported before the Special Court that further investigation would go on. According to the learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos. 2 and 4, when Annexure A6 report was filed by the Investigating Officer, who conducted further investigation, again appellants/ accused Nos. 2 and 4 were incorporated as accused and the Special Court ought to have considered both the reports together, while considering the discharge petition. Apart from that, the learned counsel for the appellants/ accused Nos. 2 and 4 reiterated the grounds stated, in Annexure A8 discharge petition filed before the Special Court to upset the order impugned. Grounds A, B, C and D raised in the discharge petition are extracted hereunder:-

“(A). The allegations in the final report are false, frivolous and vexatious. The allegations do not constitute any criminal offence. It is apparent from the record that the allegations are fabricated and concocted. The fact that the allegations are concocted is clear from the nature in which statements have been improved and embellished at each stage