No such thing as `benefit of doubt' acquittal: Judge
A Subramani
|
Chennai:
|
A.Subramani@timesgroup.com Till he was denied appointment as a police constable at the eleventh hour earlier this year, E Kalivarathan was not aware of the difference between ‘acquittal’ and ‘honourable acquittal’ in a criminal case.He, along with seven others, was slapped with rioting charges by Pudupet police in Cuddalore district in 2010. In December 2012, a magistrate court acquitted him of all charges, as none of the 12 witnesses spoke against him, and the case was not supported by any document. The magistrate said he was acquitting Kalivarathan, by giving him the ‘benefit of doubt’. As no appeal was made, the case had attained finality.
This year, Kalivarathan was selected as grade II police constable. While he was eagerly awaiting his appointment orders, he was informed that his candidature has been rejected as police verification and antecedent check revealed that he was acquitted in a criminal case, but not honorably. That is, getting cleared of a criminal offence on the basis of benefit of doubt would not mean honorable acquittal, and hence a continuing stigma.
Convinced that he deserved a clear acquittal, so as to be considered for future employments, Kalivarathan then took the extraordinary step of moving the high court seeking conversion of his acquittal into an ‘honorable acquittal’.
Justice S Nagamuthu, discussing the issue threadbare, said that if there was no evidence at all against the accused, the criminal courts should not unnecessarily use expressions such as “not proved beyond reasonable doubt” or “accused is acquitted by giving benefit of doubt.” Noting that a court cannot use the expression “honorable acquittal” which is unknown to criminal law, Justice Nagamuthu said since no one has spoken anything incriminating against Kalivarathan, he should have been given an acquittal “without adding any adjectives such as ‘not proved beyond reasonable doubt’ or ‘by giving benefit of doubt’.” He then converted the order into one of acquittal, and added that it is for the appointing authority to study the order and take appropriate decision on his appointment.
This year, Kalivarathan was selected as grade II police constable. While he was eagerly awaiting his appointment orders, he was informed that his candidature has been rejected as police verification and antecedent check revealed that he was acquitted in a criminal case, but not honorably. That is, getting cleared of a criminal offence on the basis of benefit of doubt would not mean honorable acquittal, and hence a continuing stigma.
Convinced that he deserved a clear acquittal, so as to be considered for future employments, Kalivarathan then took the extraordinary step of moving the high court seeking conversion of his acquittal into an ‘honorable acquittal’.
Justice S Nagamuthu, discussing the issue threadbare, said that if there was no evidence at all against the accused, the criminal courts should not unnecessarily use expressions such as “not proved beyond reasonable doubt” or “accused is acquitted by giving benefit of doubt.” Noting that a court cannot use the expression “honorable acquittal” which is unknown to criminal law, Justice Nagamuthu said since no one has spoken anything incriminating against Kalivarathan, he should have been given an acquittal “without adding any adjectives such as ‘not proved beyond reasonable doubt’ or ‘by giving benefit of doubt’.” He then converted the order into one of acquittal, and added that it is for the appointing authority to study the order and take appropriate decision on his appointment.
