Madhya Pradesh High Court
Neeraj Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 August, 2018
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.21647/2017
(Neeraj Sharma Vs. State of M.P.)
Gwalior, Dated: 07.08.2018
Shri Nirmal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Chaturvedi, Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
1. Writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is invoked to assail the impugned orders P-1 and P- 2 dated 21.08.2017 and 18.08.2017 by which the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of of Constable in the Police force under the Government of M.P. has been rejected on the sole ground that acquittal of the petitioner in the offence punishable u/S 3(1)(x) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (The 1989 Act) by judgment dated 21.03.2014 in S.T. No. 23/2013 rendered by Special Judge (Atrocities), Morena is not clean and honourable in nature. Further challenge is made to Annexure P-3, the circular dated 05.06.2003 issued by the Ministry of Home, Government of M.P. to the extent it comes in way of the petitioner for obtaining public employment.
2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.
3. Undisputed facts are that the petitioner participated in the recruitment process for appointment to the post of Constable in Police Force under the State of M.P. conducted in 2013. Despite selection, no appointment order was issued to the petitioner which impelled him to prefer W.P. No. 6823/2014 vide P-4. During pendency of the said petition, order Annexure P-4 dated 21.10.2014 was issued informing the petitioner that he was declared ineligible for appointment to the police force on the ground of the adverse character verification report submitted by the S.P. Monger Bihar, which impelled the petitioner to 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.21647/2017 (Neeraj Sharma Vs. State of M.P.) withdraw the said petition and filing a fresh one bearing W.P. No. 33/2015 which was disposed of vide order dated 21.10.2014 directing the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner, which was followed by filing of Contempt Petition No. 248/2017, during the pendency of which the impugned order P-1 was passed, rendering the said contempt petition infructuous thereby compelling the petitioner to prefer the present writ petition.
4. The sole question which falls for consideration herein is as to whether in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs Union of India & Ors reported in 2016 2016(8) SCC 471 and the decision of Full Bench in the case of Ashutosh Pawar Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another rendered on 12.01.2018 and in the background of the judgment of acquittal vide P-6, can the impugned order be upheld or not?
5. The sole ground for rendering petitioner ineligible for appointment to Police Force is that though he has not suppressed the factum of having been proceeded against in criminal prosecution and the same having subsequently ended in acquittal, but the said acquittal is neither clean nor honourable.
5.1 To ascertain this, the exact nature of the acquittal vide P- 6 , a microscopic scrutiny of the same is essential. 5.2 The incident which gave rise to the offence was committed on 15.11.2012 in which the complainant Motiram and Ramshankar alleged that they were subjected to humiliation by way of insult and intimidation for being members of SC/ST 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.21647/2017 (Neeraj Sharma Vs. State of M.P.) community and were assaulted by four accused including the petitioner. The FIR bearing Crime No. 574/2012 was lodged for offences punishable u/S 294, 323, 506-B read with Sec 34 IPC and Sec 3(1)(x) of SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities)Act 1989. After filing of chargsheet, charges were framed in regard to same aforesaid offences, but on account of both the complainants and all the four accused having entered into compromise, the trial Court by order dated 23.01.2014 compounded the offences punishable u/S 294, 323, 506-B IPC and acquitted all the four accused of the said offences including the petitioner leaving behind the charge regarding offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of The 1989 Act to be tried. 5.3 In the trial PW-1 Motiram complainant stated on the date of incident at 8 p.m. that 25-30 young men of the village including the four accused came and entered into an argument and scuffle with the complainant, who in the process fell down and sustained minor injuries. This complainant Motiram PW-1 however stated that none of the accused abused the complainants by derisively taking the name of the caste/tribe of the complainants and also that none of the accused extended criminal intimidation. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution. In cross-examination conducted by the Public Prosecutor, PW-1 denied making any statement before the police that the accused had uttered abusive words and taken the name of his caste in a derisive manner to humiliate . Thus, PW-1 complainant did not supported the story of prosecution in toto.
5.4 As regards the other complainant, Ramshankar PW-2, the 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.21647/2017 (Neeraj Sharma Vs. State of M.P.) testimony reveals that at 8:00 p.m., he was at home while his father PW-1 was sitting outside the house, when all the four accused arrived and started arguing with PW-1. PW-2 came out of the house on hearing the noise of arguments and tried to intervene, but he was pushed and therefore fell down on the ground sustaining minor injuries. PW-2 further testified that none of the accused uttered abusive words or took the name of his caste in a derisive manner. PW-1 was also declared hostile by the Public Prosecutor and was cross-examined, in the course of which this witness outrightly denied that no incident of humiliation and intimidation by taking the name of his caste in a derisive manner took place. PW-2 also denied that his father PW-1 was beaten with lathis' by the accused. This witness also denied his signatures on Ex. P-15. Consequently, this PW-2 also did not support the prosecution case at all. 5.5 PW-3 Pappu in his testimony revealed that at 8:00 p.m. on the day of incident he was working in the market at Morena and had no knowledge about any dispute, arguments or altercation between the four accused including the petitioner and the complainants. PW-3 denied that he had given any statement to the police. This witness also denied that police had made any arrest of the accused in his presence and further denied any recovery or seizure made in his presence. PW-3 was also declared hostile by the prosecution and was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. PW-3 in cross-examination denied that any abusive words were uttered by any of the accused or the name of his caste was taken in a derisive manner or any altercation took place. This witness further denied complainants 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.21647/2017 (Neeraj Sharma Vs. State of M.P.) to have been assaulted with the help of lathis. Lastly, this witness denied his signatures on Exhibit P-18. 5.6 Besides the above said three prosecution witnesses, no other witness was examined by the prosecution, as a result of which the trial Court found that the prosecution could not prove that the offence punishable u/S 3(1)(x) of The 1989 Act took place as alleged by the prosecution and therefore acquitted all the four accused including the petitioner.
6. A microscopic analysis of the judgment of acquittal P-6 clearly reveals that the entire prosecution story as regards the offence punishable u/S 3(1)(x) of The 1989 Act could not be established. There was not even an iota of evidence to support the prosecution story and establish even the basic ingredients of the offence punishable u/S 3(1)(x) of The 1989 Act. Resultantly, the trial Court acquitted the accused including the petitioner without extending the benefit of doubt.
6.1 The concept of acquittal in criminal law does not distinguish between a clean/honourable and a technical acquittal based upon the benefit of doubt. However, in service jurisprudence, the said distinction has relevance and therefore assumes importance. A clean acquittal is an acquittal based on no evidence or evidence which fails to establish even the foundational ingredients which constitute the offences alleged. Whereas in technical acquittal, prosecution though brings forth direct/indirect evidence in support of the charges, but the said evidence is found insufficient to satisfy the golden yardstick of proof beyond all reasonable doubts. This may happen when an eye-witness who initially states in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement that 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.21647/2017 (Neeraj Sharma Vs. State of M.P.) he had seen the accused committing the offence, but during recording of testimony does not reveal the clear picture missing out on the crucial aspects which render the testimony untrustworthy and therefore unreliable for sustaining conviction. 6.2 In light of the aforesaid discussion, if the judgment of acquittal Annexure P-6 is seen, it comes to light that none of the three prosecution witnesses which included two complainants, supported the story of prosecution. In fact all the three have denied any insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate the SC/ST character of the complainants. Not even an iota of evidence could be collected by prosecution in support of the charge of offence u/S 3(1)(x) of The 1989 Act and therefore the trial Court rightly held in the penultimate para 12 that the offence alleged u/S 3(1)(x) of The 1989 Act was not proved. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court Annexure P-6 is a verdict of honourable and clean acquittal.
6.3 The respondents by branding the said acquittal vide P-6 to be a technical one have misinterpreted the same.
7. This Court therefore has no hesitation to declare that the judgment of acquittal dated 21.03.2014 in S.T. No. 23/2013 vide P-6 is a clean and honourable acquittal qua the petitioner.
8. Consequent upon the aforesaid discussion and inspired by the decision of Apex Court in the case Avtar Singh(supra) and the full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ashutosh Pawar (supra), this Court as a necessary consequence, allows this petition to the following extent:
1. The impugned orders dated 21.08.2017 and 18.08.2017 P-1 and P-2 to the extent of holding the judgment dated 7 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No.21647/2017 (Neeraj Sharma Vs. State of M.P.) 21.03.2014 in S.T. No. 23/2013 to be not a clean/honourable acquittal, are set aside.
2. The respondents/competent authority is directed to reconsider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of constable in the Police Force and pass appropriate speaking order, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(Sheel Nagu) Judge sh/- 07/08/2018 SEHAR HASEEN 2018.08.08 10:57:44 +05'30'