Service Law: Appointment for post of constable – Disqualification for appointment – Advertisement provided for disqualification clause that only those candidates would be qualified to appear who have not been convicted for offence of moral turpitude, violent activities and not honourably acquitted by court – Respondent-candidate was found ineligible since in a criminal case under ss.302, 323, 341, 34 IPC, he was not acquitted honourably but was acquitted on benefit of doubt – High Court held in favour of respondent – Appeal by employer-State – Held: The mere fact of an acquittal would not suffice but rather it would depend on whether it was a clean acquittal based on total absence of evidence or in the criminal jurisprudence requiring the case to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, that parameter having not been met, benefit of doubt has been granted to the accused – No doubt, in that case, the person who ran the tractor over the deceased lady was one of the other co-accused but the role assigned to the others including the respondent was not of a mere bystander – The attack with knives was alleged against all the other co-accused including the respondent – During trial, a compromise was entered with complainant in favour of accused persons under ss.341, 323 IPC – However, since no compromise was possible for offence under s.302, trial continued – The prosecution witnesses having turned hostile, prosecution failed to prove case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and accused were granted benefit of doubt resulting in their acquittal – This cannot fall under the category of a clean acquittal and the trial court was thus right in using the terminology of benefit of doubt in respect of such acquittal – Thus, respondent was rightly held not eligible to appointment – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 323, 341 – Criminal jurisprudence – Benefit of doubt.
Words and Phrases: Expression “honourable acquittal” – Meaning of.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: This is a clear case where the endeavour was to settle the dispute, albeit not with the job in mind. This is obvious from the recital in the judgment of the Trial Court that the compoundable offences were first compounded during trial but since the offence under Section 302/34 IPC could not be compounded, the Trial Court continued and qua those offences the witnesses turned hostile. This cannot fall under the category of a clean acquittal and the Judge was thus right in using the terminology of benefit of doubt in respect of such acquittal. [Para 24][1201-D-E]
Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors.(2016) 8 SCC 471:[2016] 7 SCR 445 – relied on.
Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration & Ors. v. Pradeep Kumar & Anr. (2018) 1 SCC 797 : [2018] 1 SCR 112; Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram (2013) 1 SCC 598 : [2012] 11 SCR 174; State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Abhijit Singh Pawar (2018)
18 SCC 733 : [2018] 13 SCR 1133; Commissioner of Police v Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685:[2013]
13 SCR 432; Anil Bharadwaj v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. 2020 SCC Online SC 832; Joginder Singh v. State (UT of Chandigarh & Ors. (2015) 2 SCC
377 : [2014] 11 SCR 155; Mohammed Imran v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2019 (17) SCC 696 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.