The main legal point established in the judgment is that an acquittal in a criminal trial indicates that the individual was not involved in the incident, and this fact should be considered in decisions regarding appointment in government service.

ORDER :

1. Order dated July 26, 2022 passed by learned Single Judge has been impugned by filing present intra-Court appeal.

2. The appellant was before this Court impugning order dated November 21, 2020 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jalaun whereby the representation filed by him was dismissed. It is a case in which the appellant was selected to the post of Constable vide selection list dated May 15, 2018. He received call letter dated June 9, 2018 for medical checkup and completion of other formalities. In terms thereof, the appellant was to appear for medical examination on June 12, 2018. The admitted case of the appellant is that immediately after coming to know about his selection as a Constable, his enemies in the village became active and a false First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as 'FIR') was registered against him on July 3, 2018 under Section 354A(1)(iv) of IPC. The allegation in the FIR is that the present appellant namely, the accused named in the FIR, has enticed the prosecutrix inside his house and used certain obscene words. Even in the statement got recorded by the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she reiterated the stand taken in the complaint made to the police, on the basis of which FIR was registered. Thereafter, statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she improved from the version as contained in the FIR and it was added that she was molested and she was ravished with use of force by the accused (appellant herein). The aforesaid statement was recorded on July 5, 2018. Thereafter, medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted on July 7, 2018. No injury was found on any part of her body.

3. The appellant faced trial. While getting her statement recorded in the Court, the prosecutrix stated that nothing, as stated in her statement to the police at the time of registration of FIR or what was stated in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., had happened. She had not lodged complaint and her statements were recorded under pressure of her brother and father. As a result of which, the charges having not been proved, the accused, namely the present appellant was acquitted vide judgment and order dated January 27, 2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act.

4. Immediately after acquittal of the appellant, he made a representation to the competent authority on February 3, 2020 for consideration of his case for appointment as a Constable. As the same was not decided, Writ Petition No. 3076 of 2020 was filed, which was disposed of on March 3, 2020 with a direction to respondent no. 4 therein for decision of the representation made by the appellant within a period of three months. As the representation was not decided in a time bound manner as directed by this Court, Contempt Application (Civil) No. 4159 of 2020 was filed. The same was disposed of on November 2, 2020 giving one more opportunity to the respondents for disposal of the representation within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of the order. Thereafter, the representation was disposed of on November 21, 2020 rejecting the claim of the appellant. It is the aforesaid order, which was challenged before the learned Single Judge.

5. Learned Single Judge, with the opinion that the acquittal of appellant was not honourable. Considering the serious charges levelled against him, who had to become part of a disciplined force, he does not deserve to be given any concession and dismissed the writ petition.

6. The argument raised by Mr. Khare, Senior Advocate is that it is a case in which the prosecutrix improved her statement from what has been made at the time of registration of the F.I.R. and statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Initially, there was no allegation of rape and subsequently while getting her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it was added. During the trial, she categorically stated that no incident as reported to the police, i