THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. versus LOVE KUSH MEENA

Citation: [2021] 2 S.C.R. 1192 · Decided: 24-03-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1192
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
v.
LOVE KUSH MEENA
(Civil Appeal No. 3894 of 2020)
MARCH 24, 2021
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Service Law: Appointment for post of constable –
Disqualification for appointment – Advertisement provided for
disqualification clause that only those candidates would be qualified
to appear who have not been convicted for offence of moral
turpitude, violent activities and not honourably acquitted by court
– Respondent-candidate was found ineligible since in a criminal
case under ss.302, 323, 341, 34 IPC, he was not acquitted
honourably but was acquitted on benefit of doubt – High Court
held in favour of respondent – Appeal by employer-State – Held:
The mere fact of an acquittal would not suffice but rather it would
depend on whether it was a clean acquittal based on total absence
of evidence or in the criminal jurisprudence requiring the case to
be proved beyond reasonable doubt, that parameter having not been
met, benefit of doubt has been granted to the accused – No doubt,
in that case, the person who ran the tractor over the deceased lady
was one of the other co-accused but the role assigned to the others
including the respondent was not of a mere bystander – The attack
with knives was alleged against all the other co-accused including
the respondent – During trial, a compromise was entered with
complainant in favour of accused persons under ss.341, 323 IPC –
However, since no compromise was possible for offence under s.302,
trial continued – The prosecution witnesses having turned hostile,
prosecution failed to prove case against the accused persons beyond
reasonable doubt and accused were granted benefit of doubt
resulting in their acquittal – This cannot fall under the category of
a clean acquittal and the trial court was thus right in using the
terminology of benefit of doubt in respect of such acquittal – Thus,
respondent was rightly held not eligible to appointment – Penal
Code, 1860 – ss.302, 323, 341 – Criminal jurisprudence – Benefit
of doubt.
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 1192
1192
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1193
Words and Phrases: Expression “honourable acquittal” –
Meaning of.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: This is a clear case where the endeavour was to
settle the dispute, albeit not with the job in mind. This is obvious
from the recital in the judgment of the Trial Court that the
compoundable offences were first compounded during trial but
since the offence under Section 302/34 IPC could not be
compounded, the Trial Court continued and qua those offences
the witnesses turned hostile. This cannot fall under the category
of a clean acquittal and the Judge was thus right in using the
terminology of benefit of doubt in respect of such acquittal.
[Para 24][1201-D-E]
Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors.(2016) 8 SCC
471:[2016] 7 SCR 445 – relied on.
Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration & Ors. v.
Pradeep Kumar & Anr. (2018) 1 SCC 797 : [2018] 1
SCR 112; Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram
(2013) 1 SCC 598 : [2012] 11 SCR 174; State of
Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Abhijit Singh Pawar (2018)
18 SCC 733 : [2018] 13 SCR 1133; Commissioner of
Police v Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685:[2013]
13 SCR 432; Anil Bharadwaj v. High Court of Madhya
Pradesh & Ors. 2020 SCC Online SC 832; Joginder
Singh v. State (UT of Chandigarh & Ors. (2015) 2 SCC
377 : [2014] 11 SCR 155; Mohammed Imran v. State
of Maharashtra & Ors. 2019 (17)  SCC 696 – referred
to.
Case Law Reference
[2016] 7 SCR 445
relied on
Para 13
[2018] 1 SCR 112
referred to
Para 15
[2012] 11 SCR 174
referred to
Para 15
[2018] 13 SCR 1133
referred to
Para 16
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. LOVE KUSH MEENA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1194
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
[2013] 13 SCR 432
referred to
Para 16
[2014] 11 SCR 155
referred to
Para 18
2019 (17)  SCC 696
referred to
Para 19
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3894
of 2020
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.07.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in Civil Special Appeal (Writ)
No. 373 of 2019.
Vidhan Vyas, Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ms. Shobha Gupta, Ms. Medha Garg, Advs. for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
1. The moot point which arises for consideration is whether a
benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the respondent in a case charged
under Sections 302, 323, 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] can
create an opportun
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.