[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Reshmi Saseendran vs State Of Kerala on 13 January, 2026
CRL.A NO. 2319 OF 2025
1
2026:KER:2587
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 23RD POUSHA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 2319 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.11.2025 IN CRMP 901/2025
IN SC NO.1912 OF 2023 OF SPECIAL COURT- OFFENCES UNDER
SC/ST (POA) ACT,1989, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT(S)/ACCUSED:
RESHMI SASEENDRAN
AGED 43 YEARS,
W/O. SASEENDRAN, THANIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
KARIMUGAL, PUTHENCRUEZ VILLAGE, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.RAHUL
SHRI.ROOPKUMAR G.
SMT.ABHINA L.
SMT.NAMITHA NEETHU BALACHANDRAN
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 SHEEJA T.K
W/O. ARJUNAN, KELAYIMOOLAYIL HOUSE,
PERINGHALA P.O., KUNNATHUNAD VILLAGE,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683565
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.A NO. 2319 OF 2025
2
2026:KER:2587
"C.R."
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2026.
The sole accused in SC No.1912/2023 on the files of
the Special Court for the trial of offences under Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
2018, (for short 'SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2018') has filed this
criminal appeal challenging the order in Crl. M.P. No.901
of 2025 in SC No.1912 of 2023 dated 10.11.2025 aggrieved
by the dismissal of the discharge petition filed by the
appellant before the Special Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the
appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor
appearing for the State of Kerala. Though notice has been
served upon the second respondent, he did not appear.
3. The gist of the allegation is that, at 4:00
p.m. on 31/03/2023, during a meeting held in an open
space in front of the Bharat Services Facility Management
Office, situated on the ground floor of the Trans Asia Cyber
Park building near Infopark Phase-2, Padathikkara,
Puthencruze Village, the accused humiliated the defacto
CRL.A NO. 2319 OF 2025
2026:KER:2587
complainant by calling her by her caste name in public
view, thereby committed the offences punishable under
Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2018.
4. The appellant sought discharge before the
Special Court from the said offences. But the learned
Special Judge dismissed the plea of discharge finding prima
facie case against the appellant/accused.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant
assailed the order primarily relying on the statements of
the defacto complainant as well as witness No.2 and argued
that in the statement of witness No.2, no overt acts to
fasten criminal culpability on the appellant have been
stated, though in the statement of the defacto complainant
such allegations are found.
6. On perusal of the statement of the defacto
complainant produced as Annexure A1, there is specific
allegation that at about 04:00 p.m. on 31/03/2023, the
accused abused her by calling her caste name in the
presence of the cleaning staffs of Bharath Services Facility
Management Office. In this connection, it is apposite to
refer the essential ingredients to constitute the offences
under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act,
CRL.A NO. 2319 OF 2025
2026:KER:2587
2018. 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. Analogously 'abusing' any
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe
community by his caste name within public view by a non-
member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribe
community would attract offence under Sections 3(1)(r) of
SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2018. Infact, the above statement of the
defacto complainant would show the above ingredients to
attract the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of
the SC/ST (PoA) Act 2018. According to the learned
counsel for the appellant, in the statement of the second
witness and other witnesses, no such discloses are
available. However, that by itself would not be a ground to
discharge the accused as law does not insist plenty of
witnesses to prove an offence and the evidence of a solitary
wholly reliable witness would suffice the purpose. The mere
statement of the aggrieved person would prima facie
disclose the ingredients for the offences under Section 3(1)
CRL.A NO. 2319 OF 2025
2026:KER:2587
(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2018.
7. 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, though a mere suspicion would
not suffice the requirement.
8. Keeping the above principle in mind, the
order impugned is gone through, the same does not require
any interference.
In the result, the Crl.Appeal is dismissed as above.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
Jms
CRL.A NO. 2319 OF 2025
2026:KER:2587
APPENDIX OF CRL.A NO. 2319 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED
09.05.2023 ATTACHED WITH THE FIRST
INFORMATION STATEMENT (FIS) OF INFOPARK
POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM CITY
Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE RELEVENT PAGES OF
FINAL REPORT DATED 12.10.2023 SUBMITTED
BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
THRIKKKARA
Annexure A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE STATEMENTS OF
WITNESSES RECORDED BY THE POLICE DURING
THE INVESTIGATION AND FILED BEFORE THE
TRIAL COURT
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE PETITION
DATED 14.05.2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
NUMBERED AS CRL.M.P901/2025 IN S.C NO.
