Exercising Discretionary Power To Grant "Benefit Of Doubt" Not Required When Evidence Silent In Respect Of Role Of Accused: Patna High Court

Justice Bibek Chaudhuri observed, “The question of giving benefit of doubt by the Trial Court arises when from the evidence on record, it appears that two views – one in support of the prosecution and other in support of the defence are found, the Court should accept the view that is in favour of the accused.”

“In such case, the accused is entitled to get the benefit of doubt when he is acquitted. But when there is absolutely no evidence against the accused persons, they will be simply acquitted. The question of exercising discretionary power of granting the benefit of doubt does not arise when the evidence on record is absolutely silent in respect of the role of the accused persons,” Justice Chaudhuri added.

The revision petition centered around two primary issues. Firstly, it questioned whether an order of acquittal, granted due to the benefit of doubt, imposes a stigma on the accused. Secondly, it addressed the argument that when the prosecution fails to establish the charges against the accused and their involvement in the alleged offense, the appropriate term for their legal status should be "Honourably Acquitted" by the Trial Court.

The petitioner contended that being acquitted on the grounds of benefit of doubt tarnishes their reputation, and as such, the phrase in question should be formally expunged from the contested order.

The prosecution's case, as presented before the Police Authority, revolved around the de facto complainant, Shashi Karan, who alleged in his written complaint that on January 20, 2014, he and his brother-in-law (Sadahu) were attacked by Sushil Chaudhari and his associates while collecting the Asthi Kalash of their mother-in-law after her cremation. According to Karan, the accused wrongfully restrained and assaulted him with a lathi (stick), attempted to strangle him, and stole Rs. 3,000 from his pocket during the incident. An FIR was filed, and the accused were charged under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

During the trial, nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution, including Karan himself. However, none of the witnesses supported the version of events described in the FIR. Even Karan, as P.W. 5, did not corroborate the FIR story. Instead, his testimony indicated that Sushil Chaudhari and the other accused were involved in assaulting him on the specified date. Importantly, it was revealed that Karan was acquainted with Sushil Chaudhari and others.

Given the lack of supporting evidence and the presence of doubt in the factual circumstances, the Trial Court acquitted the accused persons, granting them the benefit of doubt.

Advocate Shama Sinha, representing the petitioner, cited a precedent from the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, in Writ Petition (Cr.) No. 429 of 2018, emphasizing that if the prosecution's witnesses do not support the allegations against the accused and narrate a completely different incident, the question of acquittal or benefit of doubt does not arise.

Upon examining the aforementioned unpublished decision of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Writ Petition (Cr.) No. 429 of 2018, the Court noted, “It is rightly stated in the said unreported decision that the Cr.P.C. uses the term “acquittal” in Sections 227, 235, 248, 255 and 330 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Again the word “discharge” is used under Sections 227, 239 and 245 of the Cr.P.C. Neither the term “Honourable Acquittal” nor the term “Benefit of Doubt” was used in the Code of Criminal Procedure.”

The court referred to Lord Williams J, who, in the case of Rober Stuart Wauchope vs. Emperor (1934) 61 ILR Cal. 168, introduced the term "Honourably Acquitted" for the first time. Lord Williams J stated:

“The expression “Honourably Acquitted” is one which is unknown to the courts of justice. Apparently, it is a form of order used in courts martial and other extra judicial tribunals. We said in our judgement that we accepted the explanation given by the appellant believed it to be true and considered that it ought to have been accepted by the Government authorities and by the Magistrate. Further, we decided that the appellant had not misappropriated the monies referred to in the charge. It is thus clear that the effect of our judgement was that the appellant was acquitted as fully and completely as it was possible for him to be acquitted. Presumably, this is equivalent to what Government authorities term “Honourably Acquitted.”

Furthermore, the Court observed that the term "Honourably Acquitted" had been employed in various judgments by the Supreme Court, including cases such as (i) State of Assam Vs. Raghava Rajgopalachari, reported in 1972 SLR 44; (ii) R. P. Kapur Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1964 SC 787; (iii) Management of Reserve Bank of India Vs. Bhopal Singh Panchal, reported in (1994) 1 SCC 541; (iv) Deputy Inspector General of Police Vs. S. Samuthiram, reported in (2013) 1 SCC 598; and (v) Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Vs. Mehar Singh, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 685.

The court emphasized that the cases referenced in all reported decisions primarily revolved around either the Prevention of Corruption Act or instances of misappropriation of funds, and even cases related to eve-teasing, among others.

The court highlighted that allegations such as theft of money, misappropriation, and charges of corruption inherently cast a stigma on the character and reputation of the accused, and thus it was broadly concluded in all these cases that if the prosecution is unable to substantiate the charges against the accused, the appropriate outcome should be acquittal.

Coming to the instant case, the Court observed, “it is found from the evidence of the investigation itself that the accused persons are respectable gentlemen of the locality. Therefore, if they are acquitted on benefit of doubt, it may sound that some evidence was led against the accused persons and the Trial Court disbelieved those evidences. On the contrary, in the instant case, there is absolutely no evidence against the accused persons.”

“In view of such circumstances, the words “benefit of doubt” be treated to be expunged from the judgement of the Trial Court,” the Court held while allowing the revision petition.

Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s: Ms. Shama Sinha

For the Repondent/s: Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha

Case No.: Criminal Revision No.1351 of 2018

Case Title: Sushil Kumar Choudhary vs. The State of Bihar And Ors

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 18

Click Here To Read / Download Judgement