1. 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 Section 354 of IPC 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 Investigating Officer failed to incorporate offences under Section 354 IPC as well as under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2018 in the FIR that by itself is insufficient to grant discharge, when those offences are incorporated based on the statements of victim as well as the witnesses which would disclose the prima facie commission of the said offences by the appellant, warranting trial. In such contingency, failure of the Investigating Officer to include the said offences in the FIR, or reluctance or failure on the part of the Investigating Officer in the matter of recording the statements of the victim and the witnesses disclosing the said offences at the earliest occasion are not at all sufficient grounds to grant discharge. It is relevant to note that when plea of discharge is raised, the Court must look into the prosecution records together in order to ascertain as to whether prima facie the offences are made out or atleast to find a strong suspicion from the prosecution records to proceed with trial, after framing charge, though a mere suspicion cannot suffice the said requirement.

7. On going through the records available and the findings of the Special Court, it could be gathered that the Special court dismissed the plea of discharge, holding that, prima facie, the allegations are made out. The said finding is found to be justifiable. In such circumstances, this appeal challenging dismissal of the plea of discharge by the Special Judge is liable to fail.

                  In the result, this criminal appeal is dismissed, confirming the order impugned. The learned Special Judge is directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.

                  Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Special Court forthwith for information and further steps.