IMPORTANT POINT
Acquittal – Expressions “honourable acquittal”, “acquittal of blame” and “fully exonerated” are quite unknown to Cr.P.C. or Indian Penal Code, but same are defined and coined by judicial pronouncements.

ORDER

By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned judgment dated 06.08.2012 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sambhar Lake, Jaipur in Criminal Case No.127/2006, by which the petitioners along with the co-accused persons have been acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 420, 384 and 120B IPC and benefit of doubt was granted to the petitioners only, whereas the rest of the accused persons namely Smt. Munni Devi, Smt. Meenu Mishra and Manish Mishra have been acquitted of the above offences on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

2. The petitioner No.2 is present in person. She submits that she and the petitioner No.1 are preparing for competitive examinations and the aforesaid judgment dated 06.08.2012 will come in their way for the purpose of getting recruitment as the terminology “benefit of doubt”, mentioned in the impugned judgment, will adversely affecting their future. She submits that the petitioners being sisters-in-law of the complainant have no concern whatsoever with the domestic affairs of the husband of the complainant and parents-in-law. Hence, under these circumstances, they submitted a Revision Petition before the Revisional Court i.e. the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur for deletion of the words “benefit of doubt” from the impugned judgment dated 06.08.2012. She further submits that the aforesaid words “benefit of doubt” have been deleted, but a new terminology has been added i.e. the petitioners stand acquitted “in absence of evidence”. Counsel submits that the Revisional Court has added the said new terminology without any basis, which was not the case of the petitioners before the Revisional Court, inasmuch as their prayer was simple i.e. for deletion of the words “benefit of doubt”, but unnecessarily the words “in absence of evidence” have been added. These words are also causing hindrance in future and career prospects of the petitioners for getting recruitment, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

3. Lastly, she argues that once this fact has been established on the record that role of the petitioners is not there in the alleged incident, then instead of granting the benefit of doubt or instead of passing the judgment in absence of evidence, the judgment of honorable acquittal could have been passed in favour of the petitioners. In support of her contentions, she has placed reliance upon the judgment passed the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Amarnath Pande vs. State of M.P. reported in 1988 CRI.L.J. 522 and the judgment passed by the Gauhati High Court in the case of Pratul Bhattacharjee vs. The State of Assam reported in 1986 SCC OnLine Gau 61.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer.

5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

6. Perusal of the record as well as the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below indicate that a charge-sheet under Sections 498A, 406, 420, 384 and 120B IPC was submitted against the petitioners along with co-accused persons namely Manish Mishra, Smt. Munni Devi and Smt. Meenu Mishra on the basis of a report lodged by one Smt. Manju Sharma, who is wife of Manish Mishra and sister-in-law of the petitioners. Cognizance was taken against the petitioners along with co-accused persons for the above stated offences and during the course of trial, the complainant Smt. Manju Sharma submitted an application for compounding the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC in favour of the accused Smt. Munni Devi, Smt. Meenu Mishra and Manish Mishra. The aforesaid compromise was attested and on the basis of the same, they were acquitted of the aforesaid charges. Thereafter, all the above three accused persons along with complainant approached this Court for compounding the rest of the offences and on the basis of the c