Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.
The State of Rajasthan And Others – Appellant
Versus
Love Kush Meena – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3894 of 2020
Decided on : 24-03-2021
Service Law – Appointment – Post of Police Constable – Acquittal from criminal case – Mere fact of an acquittal would not suffice, rather it would depend on whether it is a clean acquittal based on total absence of evidence or in criminal jurisprudence requiring case to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, that parameter having not been met, benefit of doubt has been granted to accused – In present case, person who ran tractor over deceased lady was one of other co-accused but role assigned to others including respondent herein was not of a mere bystander or being present at site – Attack with knives was alleged against all other co-accused including respondent – This is a clear case where endeavour was to settle dispute, albeit not with job in mind – This can hardly fall under category of a clean acquittal and Judge was right in using terminology of benefit of doubt in respect of such acquittal – Where in respect of a heinous or serious nature of crime acquittal is based on a benefit of reasonable doubt, that cannot make the candidate eligible – Impugned judgment of Division Bench and Single Judge set aside. (Paras 23, 24, 25, 28 and 29)
Facts of the case:
The moot point which arises for consideration is whether a benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of respondent in a case charged under Sections 302,323,341/34 of the Indian Penal Code can create an opportunity for the respondent to join as a constable in the Rajasthan Police service.
Findings of Court:
Circular dated 28.03.2017 is undoubtedly very wide in its application. It seeks to give the benefit to candidates including those acquitted by 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 circular when it is in conformity with the law laid down by this Court.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - The judgment holds that mere acquittal does not automatically grant eligibility for police recruitment; the acquittal must be a "clean acquittal" (total absence of evidence) for it to positively affect eligibility. (!) (!) - A benefit of doubt in a heinous or serious offense cannot make a candidate eligible for appointment; where the acquittal is based on benefit of doubt, it weighs against appointment. (!) (!) - Circulars (including circular No.1687 and the 2017 circular) are to be read in context of judicial pronouncements; circulars cannot override established legal principles that require clean acquittal for eligibility. (!) (!) - Avtar Singh v. Union of India (and follow-on principles) are applied to determine whether government orders or rules applicable at decision time permit appointment despite acquittal; the date of decision is material for circular applicability. (!) (!) - The Division Bench and Single Judge decisions were set aside; the State’s appeal succeeds in upholding the recruitment decision not to appoint due to criminal involvement and acquittal not being clean. (!)
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
1. The moot point which arises for consideration is 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.
2. The respondent and three others were charged with the aforesaid provisions of the Indian Penal Code and tried before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Laxman Garh, District Alwar, Rajasthan. The incident relates to 6.10.2008 at about 6 p.m. when, as per the complainant Babulal, one Jagdish and Dayaram came in a tractor for tilling a disputed field in jungle Patan. Tofli, mausi of Babulal forbade them to till the land and apparently stayed back in the field. At that time, the tractor driver Jagdish drove the tractor and ran over Tofli. The complainant Babulal along with one Raju, Om Prakash and Dinesh rushed to her side but were beaten up and knife injuries were inflicted upon them by Dayaram, Love Kush (respondent), Bodan and Jagdish. Tofli was taken in a Buggi to the hospital where the doctor declared her brought dead. On the basis of the said report, PS Khedli registered Case No.255 of 2008 under Sections 302,341,323,34 of the IPC and commenced the investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge sheet against all the accused persons vide No.1/2009 was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kathumar from where it was committed to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Laxman Garh. The charges were framed and all the accused denied the charges.
3. It is relevant to note that during the trial injured persons, Babulal, Om Prakash and Raju alias Rajesh obtained permission of the Court and filed a compromise in favour of accused persons under Sections 341,323 of IPC which was approved but naturally, there could not have been any compromise qua the offences under Section 302/34 IPC. In those charges the trial continued and it is quite obvious that in view of the compromise, all the prosecution witnesses, including those injured, turned hostile. On the basis of the case of the prosecution, the learned Judge opined in terms of the judgment dated 01.05.2009 that "the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt".
4. A notification for recruitment of constable was issued on 14.07.2013 under the provisions contained in part III of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Regulations, 1989 for 12178 posts of constables setting out the procedure for making the application. Para (ix) of the advertisement provided for disqualification for appointment. The relevant clause (ix) reads as under-
5. The aforesaid would show that the disqualification would operate qua conviction and "not honourably acquitted by Court" for offences of moral turpitude and violent activities. The respondent herein participated in the same and it appears was successful in the recruitment process. However, a letter dated 04.08.2015 was issued to him on the basis of character antecedent verifications carried out by the Police Superintendent. District Alwar, Dy. Inspector General Police, Security, Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereupon the aspect of the aforesaid case was looked into (it is an accepted position that the respondent had disclosed this fact and there was no concealment). The respondent was found not eligible in view of the aforesaid. The operative portion reads as under:
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
