Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Birendra Kumar, J.
Ganesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through PP – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4892/2022
Decided On : 20-09-2022
Acquittal - Criminal Trial - Clean Acquittal in Absence of Evidence
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was acquitted of the charge under Section 498A IPC & Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by the trial judge. The parties had entered into a compromise, but the court did not accept the compromise for the non-compoundable offences.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence to support the prosecution case, and therefore, the petitioner should have been acquitted with honor instead of on the benefit of doubt. The judgment of acquittal on benefit of doubt could only be recorded when there is prosecution witness in support of the charge and the prosecution evidence suffers from doubt.
Issues: The issues revolved around the acquittal of the petitioner, the acceptance of the compromise, and the absence of evidence in the prosecution case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that in cases where the prosecution evidence is nil, it would be a case of clean acquittal. The court also highlighted that no appeal is maintainable at the hands of accused persons against the judgment of acquittal.
Final Decision: The trial court judgment was quashed, and the petitioner was treated as acquitted with no stigma.
ORDER
1. The petitioner is accused and facing trial in FIR No. 236/2018 registered with Mahila Thana, Police Station, Tonk corresponding to Criminal Case No. 311/2018.
2. By the impugned judgment dated 02/05/2022, the learned Trial Judge acquitted the petitioner of the charge under Section 498A IPC & Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. It is worth to mention that the parties have entered into a compromise and the court below had already accepted compounding under Section 406 IPC, however, did not accept compromise under Section 498A and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as these offences are not compoundable.
4. No prosecution witness supported the prosecution case and all were declared hostile.
5. In the circumstance, according to learned counsel for petitioner, the petitioner should have been acquitted with honour and should not have been acquitted on ’benefit of doubt’ as recorded by the learned Trial Judge.
6. I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner since there was no evidence and therefore, there was no question of only doubting the prosecution case. It was a case of clean acquittal in absence of evidence.
6. The judgment of acquittal on benefit of doubt could be recorded only when there is prosecution witness in support of the charge and the prosecution evidence suffers from doubt. However, in cases where the prosecution evidence is nil in the sense that no prosecution witness turned up to say that he had witnessed the occurrence or the prosecution witnesses examined deposed that he does not know about the occurrence or had not seen the occurrence the same would be a case of clean acquittal.
7. Since no appeal is maintainable at the hands of accused persons against the judgment of acquittal, the petitioner has knocked the jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the miscarriage of justice.
8. Considering the facts of the case, the trial court judgment stands quashed and it is directed that by the impugned judgment, the petitioner would be treated as acquitted with no stigma.
9. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed.
AI
Clean acquittal in the absence of evidence and the limitations on the judgment of acquittal on the benefit of doubt.
A clean acquittal is warranted when there is a complete absence of prosecution evidence, distinguishing it from acquittal on the basis of doubt.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere allegations are insufficient for conviction, reinforcing the presumption of innocence for the accused.
An acquittal should be classified as a clean acquittal when there is a total absence of prosecution evidence, rather than as one based on the benefit of the doubt.
An acquittal should be classified as a 'clean acquittal' when there is a total absence of prosecution evidence, rather than granting the 'benefit of the doubt' which is reserved for cases with unreli....
Point of Law : The scope of Section 378 of Cr.P.C., in dealing with an appeal against the order of acquittal is to be borne in mind.
The acquittal of the accused was upheld as the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the allegations of cruelty and dowry demands.
The prosecution must prove dowry demands and cruelty beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under Sections 498A and 304B IPC; mere allegations are insufficient.
In acquittal appeals, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and only interfere if the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable or perverse.
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
