Prima facie evidence for trial under the SC/ST (PoA) Act and IPC offenses suffices even if offenses are not originally included in the FIR.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2026 Order dated 24.09.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.426/2024 in SC No.1058/2023 on the files of the Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2018’ for short), Ernakulam, is under challenge in this criminal appeal filed under Section 14A of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2018.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the order under challenge. Though notice was served upon the defacto complainant/3rd respondent, as mandated under Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2018, she did not appear.

3. Here, the prosecution allegation, as could be discerned from the final report, is that the accused, who does not belong to either the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, at about 19.30 hours on 06.01.2022, while the de facto complainant, who is a member of the Scheduled Caste community, was travelling in a car bearing registration No. KL-42-H-7997, beat her on the face, outraged her modesty, and also abused her by calling her caste name within public view. Thus, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 354 , 323, 427, 506, 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘ IPC ’ for short) as well as under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(va) of the SCT/ST (PoA) Act, 2018 by the appellant/accused.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that at the time of registration of FIR, no offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2018 were incorporated and subsequently, on recording the additional statements of the defacto complainant, offence under Section 354 of IPC as well as offences under Sections SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2018 were incorporated with ulterior motives, though the ingredients for the said offences could not be found from the prosecution materials, so as to frame charge/s and to proceed further in this case. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, since the ingredients for the offences under of as well as under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(w)(i) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2018 could not be found prima facie, the appellant is entitled to discharge for the said offences and thus the order under challenge is to be interfered.

5. Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor zealously opposed interference in the order impugned, whereby the learned Special Judge dismissed the discharge plea at the instance of the appellant and according to her, the prosecution records in toto would show prima facie, commission of offences punishable under Sections 354 , 427, 506, 294(b) of IPC as well as under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w) (i) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2018, for which trial is necessary.

6. On perusal of the order impugned on par with the statements available as that of the defacto complainant and other witnesses, the ingredients to bring home the above offences to be seen prima facie. It is interesting to note that even accepting the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant (though the same not acceptable), when the prosecution alleges commission of offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC (which was incorporated at the time of registration of FIR and to be borne out from the prosecution records including the final report), offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2018, automatically arise since commission of any offences in the schedule appended in the statute by itself is essential to constitute offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 2018. Most importantly, merely because the Investiga