SC-ST Act falsely implicates many innocent people- Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court noted that the SC/ST (POA) Act frequently results in wrongful accusations against innocent people.

When debating a request for anticipatory bail, the Court stated, "It is shocking, rather mind-boggling, truth that many innocent persons are victims of false implication under the SC/ST (POA) Act." It issued a warning, saying it was important to rule out the potential of making false accusations against innocent people in order to forward the complainant's own agenda.

Noting that many innocent people are being falsely implicated under the SC/ST (POA) Act, Justice A. Badharudeen stated that "the courts should have a duty to rule out the possibilities of falsely implicating innocent persons as accused, with a view to achieving ulterior motives of the complaints, with threat of arrest and detention of the accused in custody," due to the SC/ST (POA) Act's strict provisions in the matter of grant of anticipatory bail.

Therefore, it is imperative that the courts separate the wheat from the chaff by reviewing the circumstances surrounding the case's inception, the events that led up to the crime's registration, and any animosity between the complainant and the accused. They should also pay close attention to any prior disputes, cases, or complaints that may have involved the parties in question.

The Court made a comment about the SC/ST (POA) Act's nature, noting that the statute's strict provisions were added to stop the threat of atrocities committed against members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes community by taking advantage of their social backwardness "The earlier SC/ST (POA) Act was amended because the Parliament determined that its provisions were insufficient to uphold justice's ends. Following the revision of the SC/ST (POA) Act, more strict restrictions have been added, including Section 15A(3requirement )'s that the de facto complainant have a right to be heard at all stages of the legal proceedings. Because of the SC/ST (POA) Act's strict requirements, atrocities against the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community are actually designed to be reduced ".

Therefore, it was observed that when sincere complaints are made on behalf of Schedule Caste or Scheduled Tribe members, which, if committed, would constitute offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act, those complaints must be taken seriously, and appropriate legal action must be taken to address the complaints' grievances (s).

However, the Court aimed to address the problem of innocent people becoming targets of false implications under the legislation in this case. The Special Judge's decision to not allow pre-arrest bail was challenged in the current appeal.

The prosecution claimed that when the defacto complainant went to Valappad Service Co-operative Bank to pay the interest on the gold loan he had taken out, the accused referred to him by his caste name, violating Section 3 (1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The defacto complainant is a member of the Scheduled Castes community. The accused in this case, a bank employee, does not come from one of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.

The Court noted that in situations where there is evidence that the complainant and the accused are at odds with one another, there has been prior litigation between them or their men or representatives, and as retaliation or as a result of that, the allegations in the complaint are made as an offense/offenses under the SC/ST (POA) Act, the same may be the reasons to doubt the case prima facie.

The Court further noted that upon consideration of the case's genesis within the ambit of the aforementioned pari materia, if the court finds something to suggest the possibility of false implication, in such cases, the court could very well hold that prima facie, the allegations made by the prosecution could not be believed for the purpose of denying anticipatory bail, after leaving the question of the commission of the offence for a thorough and impartial investigation by the Investigating Offenders. Unquestionably, such a course of action is required to eliminate the chance of a false implication, the Court continued.

In light of the circumstances, the Court noted that the current crime was reported at the request of the husband of a Bank employee while the "internal inquiry" was ongoing. The appellant in this case submitted numerous complaints about sexual harassment to various authorities in addition to filing a complaint against the Secretary of the Bank.

"In this situation, it is impossible to rule out the claim made by the appellant that the current complaint was filed at the request of the husband of a Bank employee with the objective to falsely accuse the appellant of a major offence under the SC/ST (POA) Act. In this situation, the de facto complainant's argument is first tenuous. However, inquiry can continue fairly to ascertain the veracity of the claims, and I leave this in the hands of the investigating officer, keeping in mind that the observations made in this judgement are limited to taking pre-arrest bail plea into consideration "The Court pointed out. As a result, the Court accepted the appeal and revoked the challenged decree. Pre-arrest bail was granted to the accused appellant with the following restrictions:

First and foremost, the accused/appellant must appear before the investigating officer within ten days after this day so that the investigating officer may interrogate them. If she is arrested, the Investigating Officer must present the accused/appellant before the Special Court on the day of surrender; secondly, upon such production, the Special Court shall release the appellant/accused on bail upon execution of a bond for Rs.30,000/- each, by himself and by two sureties, each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Special Judge; thirdly, the appellant/accused shall cooperate with investigation and shall be made available for interrogation.

Xxx vs State of Kerala & Anr.