Acquittal Due to Hostile Witness Not Inherently 'Dishonourable' Bar to Police Job: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Acquittal Via Hostile Witness Not Automatically 'Dishonourable', Cannot Bar Police Job Without Reason: MP High Court

Indore: The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore recently ruled that an acquittal in a criminal case, even if resulting from witnesses turning hostile possibly due to a compromise, cannot automatically be classified as 'dishonourable' to deny a candidate appointment to the police force without proper justification by the authorities.

Justice Subodh Abhyankar , presiding over the case of Ravi Narwariya vs. Home Department and Others (W.P. No. 3205 of 2020), quashed an order that had deemed the petitioner unfit for the post of Constable despite his acquittal.

Case Background

Ravi Narwariya was selected for the post of Constable (GD) in the 2017 recruitment drive. However, during the police verification process, it surfaced that he had been implicated in a criminal case (Crime No. 61/2007, involving sections like 452, 323, 506 IPC) but was subsequently acquitted by the trial court in 2018 (Criminal Case No. 2642/2007, tried under Sec 452, 324/34 IPC) as the complainant and witnesses turned hostile.

The appointing authority, vide order dated 31.10.2018, rejected Narwariya 's candidature, stating that although he had disclosed the case and acquittal, such acquittal did not fall under the category of "clean or honourable acquittal," rendering him unsuitable for government service, particularly the police force.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Counsel (Shri Dharmendra Chelawat ): * Argued that the acquittal was effectively clean and honourable for practical purposes. * Cited a coordinate bench decision in Archana Nagar Vs. State of MP (W.P.No.19628/2017), which held that a criminal court need not explicitly label an acquittal as "honourable." * Pointed out that the trial court judgment noted the complainant turned hostile and even stated the injuries were sustained due to a fall.

Respondent's Counsel (State - Ms. Mradula Sen): * Contended the acquittal was on technical grounds (hostile witnesses/compromise) and therefore not honourable. * Cited Supreme Court judgments ( Commissioner of Police vs. Meharsingh (2013) 7 SCC 685) emphasizing the requirement of high moral character for police service (Police Regulation 53(c)). * Argued that the nature of the initial allegation (use of an iron rod) suggested the petitioner's conduct was suspicious, regardless of the acquittal's basis. * Also raised the point of an alternative remedy (appeal under Police Regulations).

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

Justice Abhyankar observed that the impugned rejection order failed to provide any reasoning as to why the petitioner's acquittal was considered not clean or honourable. The order merely stated: "ऐसी दोषमुक्ति clean or honourable acquittal की श्रेणी में नहीं आती है।" (Such acquittal does not fall in the category of clean or honourable acquittal). The court reiterated the principle that reasoning cannot be supplied later through the State's reply in court.

The Court extensively referred to the Archana Nagar decision, which itself discussed the Supreme Court's view in Inspector General of Police v S.Samuthiram (2013) 1 SCC 598. In Samuthiram , the Apex Court noted that terms like "honourable acquittal" are judicial constructs, not defined in the CrPC or IPC, and suggested it applies when the prosecution "miserably fails" after full consideration.

Justice Abhyankar highlighted the practical realities of the justice system:

> "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."

Based on this, the Court concluded:

> "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 lack of specific reasoning in the rejection order, combined with the court's view that acquittals due to hostile witnesses (especially in potentially minor or falsely implicated cases) aren't automatically dishonourable, led to the decision in favour of the petitioner.

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the rejection order dated 31.10.2018. It directed the respondents to: 1. Include Ravi Narwariya in the selection list. 2. Post him as Constable (GD) at the 34th Battalion SAF, Dhar. 3. Grant him all consequential benefits, excluding back wages , as he had not performed the duties of the post.

This exercise is to be completed within four weeks from the date of the order (November 4, 2024).