In a significant ruling touching upon the real-life consequences of judicial terminology, the Rajasthan High Court clarified that mere acquittal is not enough when words used in judgments continue to shadow an individual’s future. The Court intervened to ensure that justice is not only done but also reflected meaningfully in the language of acquittal.
The petitioners, sisters-in-law of the complainant, were prosecuted under Sections 498A, 406, 420, 384 and 120B IPC. While co-accused were acquitted on the basis of compromise, the Petitioners were acquitted by the trial court with the remark “benefit of doubt.” Later, the revisional court removed this phrase but replaced it with “in absence of evidence,” which the Petitioners argued still adversely affected their future employment prospects.
The counsel for the Petitioners contended that both phrases “benefit of doubt” and “in absence of evidence” cast a stigma and hinder their career opportunities, especially in public employment, despite there being no evidence against them. They sought a clean and honourable acquittal.
The State opposed the plea and supported the findings of the courts below.
The Court made a detailed distinction between different forms of acquittal and emphasized that where prosecution completely fails, anything less than a clear exoneration is unjustified. The Court observed that “Once both the Courts below were of the considered opinion that there was no evidence against the petitioners, then certainly, the judgment of honourable acquittal could have been passed instead of giving the ‘benefit of doubt’ or ‘in absence of evidence’.”
It further explained that although terms like “honourable acquittal” are not defined in the Cr.P.C., they signify a situation where the prosecution has “miserably failed to prove the charges,” thereby entitling the accused to a complete clean chit. The Court also noted the social reality that in matrimonial disputes, distant relatives are often unnecessarily implicated, reinforcing the need for careful judicial scrutiny.
The High Court allowed the petition and modified the revisional court’s judgment by expunging the words “in absence of evidence.” It held that the petitioners stand honourably acquitted, thereby granting them a clear and stigma-free exoneration.
Case Title: Nishi Mishra & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1469/2013
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
Advocate for the Appellant: Petitioner No.2 appeared in person
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP with Ms. Neha Goyal
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
