Denial Of Opportunity For Not Getting 'Honourable' Acquittal In Criminal Case Against Principle Of Reintegration Into Society: Rajasthan HC
Rajasthan High Court has set aside an order of the Superintendent of Police rejecting the candidature of the Petitioner for the post of the Constable on the grounds that his acquittal in an FIR registered against him was not honourable, but due to lack of evidence.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga ruled that an acquittal was an acquittal, on whatever ground, which restored the Petitioner's status as a law-abiding citizen. It was held that denying appointment to the petitioner solely due to FIR in which he was acquitted amounted to punishing him and was against the principle of reintegration of that individual into society.
The Court held that an acquitted individual could not be stigmatized for having been part of a criminal trial in the past.
“The respondents' stand that the acquittal was not "honorable" is merely speculative. The acquittal remains valid unless set aside in appeal. No such appeal was filed by the state. Denying the petitioner an appointment solely due to an FIR/trial, in which he has been acquitted, amounts to punishing him.”
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by the Petitioner challenging rejection of his candidature in recruitment process for the post of Constable, despite clearing all other eligibility criteria.
It was the case of the Petitioner that during the recruitment process, an FIR was registered against him for offences of simple hurt and unlawful assembly which was duly disclosed by him during the document verification process. Eventually he was acquitted in the case. However, despite such disclosure, the petitioner was not granted the appointment against which the petition was filed.
It was submitted by the counsel for the respondents that firstly, the Petitioner had concealed the fact of being charged in an FIR at the time of applying for the job and secondly, it was submitted, that even though he was acquitted, the acquittal was not honorable but due to lack of evidence.
After hearing the contentions from both sides, the Court rejected the first argument raised on behalf of the respondents observing that the FIR came to be registered only after the last date of filling the application for the post. And the fact was disclosed at the subsequent stage of the process. It was opined that the chronology of the events was self-revealing that the Petitioner did not conceal any fact and there was no evidence of willful misrepresentation or deceit.
Furthermore, answering the second argument raised by the counsel for the respondents, the Court referred to the Supreme Court case of Rajendra Meena v State of Rajasthan in which the petitioner was rejected on the ground that his acquittal was not an honourable acquittal. It was held that,
“Every acquittal is honourable acquittal. There is nothing in the Criminal Procedure Code nor is there any rule of criminal jurisprudence for treating the effects and consequences of an honourable acquittal (different) from an acquittal on failure of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt…There is no conception like "honourable acquittal" in Criminal Procedure Code The onus of establishing the guilt of accused is on the prosecution, and if it fails to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to be acquitted.”
The Court further held that the charges of simple hurt and unlawful assembly were not grave indicating any moral turpitude or a serious threat to law and order. And in any case, the Petitioner was acquitted of all charges.
The Court opined that denying employment opportunity to an accused who was acquitted was against the principle of reintegration of such individuals into society and the Court found no grounds on which the respondents were pleading that the Petitioner was not entitled to any benefit of acquittal.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to issue appointment letter to the Petitioner.
Title: Shankar Lal v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 361