Omission of caste insult in initial police intimation does not vitiate SC/ST (POA) Act proceedings if substantiated later.

O R D E R

The accused in S.C No.672/2019 on the files of the Sessions Court, Thrissur, has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against him in the aforesaid case. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 325, 294(b) and 506(i) I.P.C and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

2. The prosecution case is that on 17.08.2019 at about 9:00 p.m, the petitioner who belongs to the Hindu Ezhava community, verbally abused and criminally intimidated the de facto complainant belonging to Scheduled Caste community, referring to his caste, and also by uttering obscene words, and thereafter, inflicted voluntary grievous hurt upon the de facto complainant by fisting and hitting with hands upon his left ear, causing serious injuries to the ear drum. The reason for the aforesaid assault is said to be the brawl which arose consequent to the hitting of the car driven by the de facto complainant upon the motorbike of the petitioner.

3. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that he is totally innocent and that a false case has been foisted against him. It is further stated that none of the offences as alleged by the prosecution, are brought out in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the second respondent, and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

5. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the challenge in this petition is confined to the incorporation of the offences under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST(POA) Act, and that the relief sought for may be limited to the quashing of the aforesaid penal provisions in the final report. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the aforesaid offences under the relevant provisions of the SC/ST(POA) Act, are incorporated in the complaint preferred by the de facto complainant pursuant to an afterthought. It is stated that Annexure-A1 is the first complaint which the de facto complainant preferred before the Sub Inspector of Police, Viyyur Police Station in connection with the incident involved in this case, and that the aforesaid complaint does not contain any indication about any intentional insult, intimidation or humiliation of the de facto complainant in the name of his caste. Thus, it is argued that the allegations pertaining to the commission of the offences under the SC/ST(POA) Act, are subsequently incorporated in the complaint filed by the de facto complainant before the Court, after about six months from the date of incident, misusing the penal provisions under the aforesaid Act, to harass the petitioner.

6. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the above regard, cannot be accepted due to two reasons. Firstly, it has to be stated that Annexure-A1 is not a complaint, but only an intimation given by the de facto complainant to the S.I of Police, Viyyur, immediately after the incident involved in this case, about the physical assault meted out to him by the petitioner. Secondly, the omission on the part of the de facto complainant to state about the humiliation suffered by him in the name of caste at the hands of the petitioner, in the aforesaid intimation, cannot be treated as a serious infirmity striking on the trustworthiness of the case put forward by the de facto complainant in the complaint filed before the learned Magistrate after about six months. It is pertinent to note that, the specific case of the de facto complainant is that he was constrained to file the complaint before the learned Magistrate, since the