Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Birendra Kumar, J.
Abhishek Kumar @ Sonu & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through P. P. - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 823/2023
Decided On : 08-02-2023
[ACQUITTAL] - [CRIMINAL LAW] - [The court emphasized that a judgment of acquittal on the 'benefit of doubt' is inappropriate when there is no prosecution evidence. The absence of supportive witness testimony led to a determination of a clean acquittal, allowing the petitioners to be treated as acquitted without stigma.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were accused in FIR No. 439/2019 and were acquitted by the Trial Judge on 29/01/2021 under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC, with the acquittal based on the benefit of doubt despite a compromise being accepted for Section 406 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found merit in the petitioners' argument that the acquittal should not have been on the basis of doubt, as there was no evidence presented by the prosecution, leading to a clean acquittal.
Issues: Whether the acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt was appropriate given the absence of prosecution evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a judgment of acquittal on benefit of doubt is only valid when there is some prosecution evidence that is doubtful. In cases where there is no evidence, the acquittal should be termed as clean.
Result: The trial court's judgment was quashed, and the petitioners were declared acquitted without any stigma.
ORDER
1. The petitioners are accused facing trial in FIR No. 439/2019 registered Police Station Hindaun City, corresponding to Criminal Case No. 1180/2019.
2. By the judgment dated 29/01/2021, the learned Trial Judge acquitted the petitioners of the charge under Section 498-A and 406 of IPC giving benefit of doubt.
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 of offence under Section 498-A of IPC.
4. No prosecution witness supported the prosecution case and all were declared hostile.
5. In the circumstance, according to learned counsel for petitioners, the petitioners 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 petitioners since there was no evidence, therefore, there was no question of only doubting the prosecution case. It was a case of clean acquittal in absence of evidence.
7. The judgment of acquittal on benefit of doubt could be recorded only when there is prosecution evidence 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. In other words, the prosecution witnesses examined deposed that they does not know about the occurrence or had not seen the occurrence or turned hostile, the same would be a case of clean acquittal.
8. 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.
9. Considering the facts of the case, the trial court judgment stands quashed and it is directed that the petitioners would be treated as acquitted with no stigma.
10. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed.
AI
A clean acquittal is warranted when there is a complete absence of prosecution evidence, distinguishing it from acquittal on the basis of doubt.
Clean acquittal in the absence of evidence and the limitations on the judgment of acquittal on the benefit of doubt.
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 appellate court must uphold acquittals unless the trial court's findings are perverse or unreasonable, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's reasonable conclusions, intervening only if the acquittal is perverse or illegal.
When prosecution witnesses turn hostile and the basis of the case is undermined, the trial may be deemed futile, justifying the quashing of proceedings against accused.
The acquittal of co-accused leads to the quashing of proceedings against a petitioner when the charges are identical and no independent evidence supports further prosecution.
The judgment reaffirms the double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused in an appeal against acquittal and highlights the limitations on the appellate court's power to interfere with the t....
The presumption of innocence and the principle of benefit of doubt are paramount in criminal law, requiring clear evidence for conviction.
In acquittal appeals, the presumption of innocence is paramount; the appellate court must confirm that the trial court's decision was based on reasonable evidence before interfering.
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
