Statement of Complainant Alone Can Warrant Denial of Discharge in SC/ST Act Case: Kerala High Court

In a significant ruling regarding the threshold for continuing criminal trials, the High Court of Kerala has clarified that the testimony of a solitary, reliable witness is sufficient to establish a prima facie case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2018. A. Badharudeen, J., ruled that the absence of corroborating statements from other witnesses does not entitle an accused to a discharge if the complainant's account sufficiently supports the charges.

The Underlying Dispute

The legal battle originated from an incident reported on March 31, 2023, at the Bharat Services Facility Management Office within the Trans Asia Cyber Park, near Infopark Phase-2 in Puthencruze. The complainant alleged that the accused, Reshmi Saseendran, publicly humiliated her by using caste-based slurs in the presence of cleaning staff. These actions formed the basis for charges under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2018.

Seeking to avoid trial, the appellant filed a discharge petition before the Special Court, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to justify proceeding. When the Special Court dismissed this plea, finding a prima facie case against her, the matter was elevated to the High Court.

Arguments from the Defense and State

The appellant’s counsel contended that the prosecution’s case was fatally flawed. Their primary argument rested on a discrepancy between the statements provided by the complainant and those of the second witness. Counsel maintained that because the second witness failed to mention any "overt acts" of humiliation by the accused, the prosecution lacked the necessary support to fasten criminal culpability upon the appellant.

The State opposed, asserting that the complainant's clear and specific account of being abused by her caste name in a public setting, as defined under the Act, satisfied the requirements for framing charges at this preliminary stage.

The Court’s Legal Analysis

Justice A. Badharudeen underscored the specific legislative intent of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, noting that the act of "abusing" a member of a protected community by their caste name in public view constitutes a serious offence. The Court clarified that while a plea of discharge requires the court to examine whether there is enough evidence or "strong suspicion" to frame a charge, it does not necessitate the production of a multitude of witnesses at the outset.

The Court emphasized that the law does not demand a specific quantity of evidence, but rather the reliability of the allegations presented. Thus, if a victim’s statement is deemed "wholly reliable," it alone can satisfy the threshold to proceed to trial.

Key Observations

Highlighting the standard required for such cases, the judgment stated:

• "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."
• "The law does not insist plenty of witnesses to prove an offence and the evidence of a solitary wholly reliable witness would suffice the purpose."
• "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."

Conclusion and Future Implications

The Kerala High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, allowing the trial in SC No.1912/2023 to proceed. By reinforcing that a single credible statement can serve as a sufficient basis for prosecution under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, the Court has provided crucial guidance on the evidentiary requirements for discharge petitions. This ruling serves as a reminder to practitioners that the absence of exhaustive corroboration during the initial stages does not necessarily invalidate criminal proceedings if the primary testimony effectively meets the statutory definitions of an offence.