Sojan Varghese & Anr. vs State Of Kerala & Ors.

Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in SC No. 817/2021 on the files of the Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('SC/ST (PoA) Act' for short) have filed this appeal challenging the order in Crl.MP 577/2024 in S.C No. 817/2024 dated 17.06.2025, whereby the discharged pleas raised by them were found against.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala and also the learned counsel appearing for the additional respondents 2 to 4.

The prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 304, 201 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) as well as under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, by the accused Nos.1 and 2/appellants 1 and 2. The allegation is that the 1^st accused, a non-member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community who was running poultry farm in Mattathoor had installed electric wire around his farm and provided electric supply therein with knowledge that if human beings would touch the same, the same would be fatal to them. Pursuant to the said overt act, a labourer in the poultry farm, who was a member of the scheduled caste community got electrocuted and expired on 15.09.2020. The allegation against the 2^nd accused is that he had caused disappearance of the evidence by removing the electric wire soon after the occurrence, with intention to screen the accused persons from the prosecution.

The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution materials are insufficient to proceed further by framing charge and additional respondents 2, 3 and 4 have no objection in discharging the appellants. Therefore, on finding that these are no prima facie materials against the appellant in this case, discharge pleas to be allowed, after setting aside the impugned order.

The learned Public Prosecutor fully supported the prosecution allegations and the order impugned. According to him there are materials in abundance to show prima facie commission of the offences under Sections 304, 201 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) as well as under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act by the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2. Therefore the order is liable to be confirmed.

On perusal of prosecution records along with the order impugned, it is perceptible that witness Nos. 16 and 17 gave statements to the police that they were aware of passage of electricity through the metal wires on the farm of the 1^st accused installed by the 1^st accused and witness No.22 gave statement to the Police that he had given an expert report regarding the availability of electricity during the time of occurrence. Thus, prima facie, the prosecution allegation as to commission of the above offences could be gathered from the prosecution records.

It is strange to note that in the instant case, the legal heirs of the deceased got arrayed as additional respondents 2 to 4 and they submitted that they have no objection in allowing the review petition by granting discharge. In this connection, it is held that the legal heirs of the deceased have no right to compound or settle or to concede grant of discharge to an accused involved in a serious offence of culpable homicide punishable u/s 304 of IPC; since the said offence is against the State. Most importantly no objection raised by the defacto complainant, injured person, victims of crime or the aggrieved persons or the legal heirs cannot be the sole basis for discharging an accused even in cases involving compoundable offences, though they can compound and settle compoundable offences and also seek quashment of certain cases involving non compoundable offences with the aid of Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita before the High Court. In fact, plea of discharge shall be considered based on the prosecution records alone. Therefore, no objection submitted by the legal heirs of the deceased is of no significance in the present case in allowing this review petition challenging the order dismissing the discharge petition. Thus, plea of discharge on the said ground must fail.

In such a case, the learned Special Judge has rightly dismissed the discharge petition. Accordingly, the said order is liable to be confirmed.

In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed.

All pending interlocutory applications stand dismissed directing the Sessions Court to proceed with trial.

Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN SC NO. 817/2021 PENDING ON THE FILES OF THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT CASES, THRISSUR.