Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gurmeet Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 July, 2018
Gurmeet Singh and Ors v. State of M.P. 1
MCRC. No.27375/2018
16.7.2018
Per S.K. Awasthi, J.
Shri Suresh Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Smt. Sangeeta Pachauri, learned public prosecutor for the respondent/State.
1. By way of this petition u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C, the petitioners pray that judgment dated 14.12. 2017 passed by 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No. 27/2017 may be modified by employing the term "honourable acquittal" instead of "acquittal".
2. The petitioners were tried for the offences punishable under sections 294, 342 and 394 of the IPC in sessions trial no. 27/2017 and by way of impugned judgment passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri dated 14.12.2017, the petitioners/accused were acquitted from the aforesaid offences holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. However, being aggrieved by the term "acquittal" used in the said judgment, the petitioners moved this petition praying that such acquittal may be termed to be "honourable acquittal" .
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that prosecution witnesses, complainant and the eye witnesses of the incident did not identify the petitioners before the court and specifically stated that they first time saw the petitioners in the court and there is no evidence against the petitioners to prove their complicity in the crime. In these circumstances, the trial court ought to have absolved the petitioners with the term "honourable acquittal", however the trial court committed error giving benefit of doubt. Therefore, he prayed that the aforesaid findings be Gurmeet Singh and Ors v. State of M.P. 2 MCRC. No.27375/2018 modified and the acquittal of the petitioners be modified as "honourable acquittal".
4. Learned public prosecutor opposes the petition by submitting that the petitioners were named in the FIR, therefore, no question of identification of the petitioners arises and in the statements recorded before the court, when the witnesses did not identify the petitioners then certainly the accused persons are acquitted by giving benefit of doubt and she therefore, prayed for rejection of the petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the impugned judgment and the statements of the witnesses filed by the petitioners
6. First question worth consideration is as to whether the criminal court can use the expression "honourable acquittal" while acquitting an accused. This question is no more res-intergra in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manni Lal Vs. Parmai Lal, AIR 1971 SC 330 and Dilip Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 133, wherein the Supreme Court has held that the expressions "honourable acquittal", "acquitted of blame" and "fully exonerated"
are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression "honourably acquitted". When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was "honorably acquitted".
7. Thus, in a criminal jurisprudence expression "honourable acquittal" is of no relevance though it may have some relevance Gurmeet Singh and Ors v. State of M.P. 3 MCRC. No.27375/2018 when it comes to service jurisprudence wherein employer is required to see the antecedents of the incumbent seeking employment. Therefore, the criminal court while acquitting the accused, undoubtedly, cannot employ the term "that the accused is/ are honourably acquitted. But at the same time, in all cases where there is no evidence at all against the accused, the criminal court should simply say "acquitted". The Criminal Court may say that there is no evidence against the accused.
8. It is also pertinent to note that petition u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C would not lie to convert an order of acquittal as an order of "honourable acquittal" as the term "honourable acquittal" is unknown to criminal code. Therefore, while acquitting an accused, the criminal court cannot use the expression "honourable acquittal".
9. Now, turning to the facts of the present case, a perusal of the judgment of the trial court and statement of the prosecution witnesses go to show that no one has spoken anything incriminating them. The complainant Ramniwas Dhakad (PW-1) and abductee Munshi Ram Dhakad (PW-3) deposed that they do not know the petitioners/accused persons and they first time saw them in the court room. Taking into consideration this fact, the trial court concluded that although petitioners are named in the FIR, however, since the witnesses refused to identify them, therefore, the involvement of the petitioners in the present crime is not established beyond doubt, hence, petitioners/accused persons were acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. The finding of the trial court in our considered opinion, appears to be correct. Of course, the term "honourable acquittal" is foreign to the criminal law jurisprudence and so this court cannot convert the order of Gurmeet Singh and Ors v. State of M.P. 4 MCRC. No.27375/2018 acquittal into one of "honourable acquittal".
10. Order of acquittal means a person concerned, has not committed the offence for which he was charged and tried. Criminal courts record acquittal when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt given to the accused does not mean that the accused was involved in the case but the same could not be proved by the prosecution. In criminal law, words "beyond reasonable doubt" cannot be termed as stigma or proof of any criminal charge against acquitted accused. Therefore, the petition for expunging the same is not maintainable under section 482 of the Cr.P.C and the same is misconceived.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, in our considered opinion, we fine nothing to invoke extraordinary powers as enumerated under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
12. Consequently petition stands dismissed.
(Sanjay Yadav) (S.K.Awasthi)
Judge Judge
ar
ar
ABDUR RAHMAN
2018.07.20 10:44:46
+05'30'