In Acquittal Due To Compromise/Hostile Witness, Unjustified For Authorities To Put Honourable Acquittal Test In False Cases: Madhya Pradesh HC
Anukriti Mishra
26 Nov 2024 4:15 PM IST
In a case concerning acquittal of an individual in a criminal case on account of witnesses turning hostile, the Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed it is unjustified for the authorities to apply the test of honourable acquittal especially when the initial case was itself false.
In doing so the court said that the respondent authorities had not justified how the acquittal of the petitioner in a criminal case was not honourable. In the case before the high court the petitioner's candidature to the post of Constable was rejected by the authorities after it observed that his acquittal in the criminal case on account of witnesses turning hostile was not clean/honorable and hence he wasn't fit for a government job.
The single-judge bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar observed, “It is a common knowledge that in many such trivial criminal cases where false allegations are made against accused persons, which is a practice prevalent in India, many a times either compromise takes place or the witnesses turn hostile for whatever be the reasons, and the accused are acquitted of the offences. In such circumstances, this Court is also of the considered opinion that when the initial case itself was false, it is unjustified and unwarranted for the authorities to apply the test of honourable acquittal on a person falsely implicated. Thus, it cannot be said that the acquittal which has occasioned on account of witnesses turning hostile or compromise between the parties, is not an honourable acquittal.”
In the present case, the candidature of the petitioner who was selected for the post of Constable, was rejected after Police Verification as it was found that the petitioner had mentioned in his form that he was involved in a criminal case. However, he was acquitted from the said criminal cases on the account of witnesses turning hostile. In the impugned order, it was held that the acquittal of the petitioner does not fall within the category of clean or honourable acquittal, hence, he is unfit for the Government service. Pursuant to this the petitioner moved the high court.
The counsel for the petitioner relied on the case of Archana Nagar Vs. State of MP & Anr. wherein in a similar case, the High Court held that it is not necessary that the criminal Court must opine that the accused is “honourably acquitted”. Thus, the counsel submitted that since the petitioner's acquittal was a clean acquittal for all the practical purposes, it cannot be held that it was not a clean or honourable one.
In contrary, the counsel for the respondent relied on two cases wherein the Supreme Court had held that to get an appointment in the Police force it is a pre-condition for a person to have honesty of highest level and good moral character and thus, merely because the petitioner has been acquitted, he cannot be taken into Police service, as provided under Regulation 53(c) of the Police Regulation, which provides that the pre-requisite for appointment in Police force is that he should be of good moral character and antecedents and since the petitioner has been acquitted on technical grounds, his conduct is suspicious and is not liable to be inducted in the Police force.
The counsel for the respondent/State also submitted that no case for interference is made out as apparently, the petitioner had used an iron rod to assault the complainant, who subsequently entered into a compromise with the petitioner and turned hostile and thus, his acquittal cannot be said to be honourable. Opposing this contention, the counsel for the petitioner said that the Trial Court in its judgement had taken note of the fact that the complainant turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution and had also stated that he suffered injuries on account of fall only.
The high court relied on the judgement of Archana Nagar (supra) and said that the Supreme Court had not distinguished between a simple acquittal or clean/honourable acquittal and, since the petitioner was acquitted, may be on account of witnesses turning hostile owing to compromise between the parties, it cannot be said that his acquittal was not an honourable acquittal.
The court also referred to the impugned order and said that the respondent has not clarified as to how the acquittal of the petitioner has become a dishonourable one.
"However, they have tried to justify the same in their reply and it is trite that when the order which lacks reasoning is impugned, it cannot be supplemented in the reply filed by the State," it added.
The court also noted the fact that in the Trial Court's order of acquittal of the petitioner, the complainant turned hostile and had also stated that he suffered injuries on account of fall only. “Thus, it cannot be said that the acquittal which has occasioned on account of witnesses turning hostile or compromise between the parties, is not an honourable acquittal.”, the Court said.
Thus, the court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order which rejected the petitioner's candidature stating that it cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
“The petitioner is directed to be included in the selection list and be posted on the post (GD) at posting unit 34th Battalion SAF, Dhar with all the consequential benefits, however, excluding the back wages, as the petitioner has not worked on the said post.”, the Court said.
Case Title: Ravi Narwariya versus Home Department & Others, Writ Petition No. 3205 of 2020
