Benefit Of Doubt Resulting In Acquittal Does Not Entitle The Candidate For An Appointment In Govt Posts: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court while recently allowing an appeal against the order affirming the appointment of person as constable in Rajasthan Police Service has observed that benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal does not entitle the candidate for an appointment in Govt posts.
“The mere fact of an acquittal would not suffice but rather it would depend on whether it is 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 the facts of the present 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 herein was not of a mere bystander or being present at site. The attack with knives was alleged against all the other co-accused including the respondent.”, Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul & Justice R Subhash Reddy noted.
In the present matter, the respondents & three others were charged with the offences u/s 302,323,341/34 of IPC for driving a tractor & running over the deceased & beating & inflicting knife injuries upon Raju, Om Prakash & Dinesh. The Trial Court vide order dated 01.05.2009 based on the case of prosecution, opined that, “the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt”. The respondent participated in the recruitment process issued via notification issued under Rajasthan Police Subordinate Services Regulations,1989 on 14.07.2013 for the posts of constable & was successful in the same. However a letter dated 04.08.2015 the respondent was found ineligible on the basis of character antecedent verifications carried out by the Police Superintendent. The respondent challenged the order before the Rajasthan High Court which was allowed by judgement dated 11.11.2016 by directing for remitting the matter back to Superintendent of Police, Udaipur for passing a fresh appropriate order with regard to the candidature of the respondent in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order and consequences would follow. Vide order dated 23.05.2017, the District Police Superintendent, Udaipur found the respondent ineligible by opining that the charges against the respondent were not of a trivial nature but were serious offences and the candidate was not acquitted by the Court honourably.
The respondent assailing the order dated 23.05.2017 again approached the Court in which the Ld Single Judge vide order dated 14.05.2018 opined that the Court was not convinced that the authority had applied its mind in accordance with the directions given by the Court vide order dated 11.11.2016. Placing reliance on a circular dated 28.03.2017, the Court found that the respondent is falling in the first category.
Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the order before the Division Bench which was dismissed by opining that the respondent was not disentitled for the appointment to the post of a constable as there was no cogent evidence related to his involvement in a criminal case.
Thereafter, the appellant approached before this Court.
The issue that arose for consideration was whether a benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the respondent in a case charged under Sections 302,323,341/34 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] can create an opportunity for the respondent to join as a constable in the Rajasthan Police service.
The Bench while taking note of the fact that the case was an endeavour settle the dispute not with the job in mind observed that,
“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. We are of the view that this can hardly 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.”
Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court judgement Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 471 in which the three Judge Bench stipulated that where in respect of a heinous or serious nature of crime the acquittal is based on a benefit of reasonable doubt, that cannot make the candidate eligible.
Thus the Bench while allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench dated 16.07.2019 and learned Single Judge dated 14.05.2018 observed that,
“The circular dated 28.03.2017 is undoubtedly very wide in its application. It seeks to give the benefit to candidates including those acquitted by the Court by giving benefit of doubt. However, such circular has to be read in the context of the judicial pronouncements and when this Court has repeatedly opined that giving benefit of doubt would not entitle candidate for appointment, despite the circular, the impugned decision of the competent authority dated 23.05.2017 cannot be said to suffer from infirmity as being in violation of the circular when it is in conformity with the law laid down by this Court.”
Case Title: The State of Rajasthan & Ors v. Love Kush Meena