Monday, December 5, 2022

Technical Aquittal and Honorable acquittal are two different things: Supreme Court

Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

The Supreme Court dismissed plea of the plea of one Vinod Kumar who sought the appointment to the post of Chemical Processor Worker (Semi- Skilled) in Ordnance Factory, Itarsi, based on the premise that his acquittal from the offences punishable under Section 376, 384, 509 of IPC read with section 4 of POCSO Act was based on benefit of doubt and it was not a honourable or clean acquittal.

The Bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant affirmed the impugned judgment  of Madhya Pradesh High Court.

Justice Surya Kant said that putting up pictures of uncladed girl on social media is an absolute act of disgrace. To humiliate and violate the dignity of a woman is a heinous act.

The counsel of the Petitioner submitted before the bench that allegations for uploading naked pictures of girl were not proven by the trial court.

Justice Kant also added that as benefit of doubt is concerned, court draws inference that the girl was major and not minor.

To which Justice Surya Kant said that the Session Judge had acknowledged found that video clip was uploaded by the petitioner.  It seems that consent was there.

Justice Chandrachud submitted that Vinod may be eligible for other services, but as the post of defence is concerned, petitioner has bad moral turpitude

Justice Kant put forth his point that the apex court hasd in earlier occasions differentiated between technical acquittal and honourable acquittal.

Vinod Kumar had preferred Special leave Petition challenging Madras High Court Judgment, wherein the Madras High Court Judgment held that that Judgment of acquittal was based more on benefit of doubt and therefore Petitioner Vinod Kumar is not a clean and honourable acquittal.

The Division Bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sunita Yadav, of Madhya Pradesh High Court had categorically observed  in Para 4 of the Judgment that ‘It is now well settled that unless the acquittal in criminal trial is honourable and clean, the employer has enough discretion to find a candidate to be unfit for employment, subject to various other factors such as sensitivity and job requirement of the post involved.

It is only that the Trial Court after indulging in marshalling of evidence came to a finding that initial complaint made by prosecutrix appears to be false. Thus, the prosecution story was not out-rightly rejected or the offence was not disproved, by the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court.

Vinod Kumar assailed order of CAT, Jabalpur Bench passed on 21.12.2021 before Madras High Court.

The candidature of Vinod Tiwari was cancelled on the basis of his verification of criminal antecedents .

It was found out that though petitioner had been acquitted on 26.05.2017 of the charges for offences punishable under Section 376, 384, 1 509 of IPC read with Section 4 of POCSO Act.

The two judges bench of Madras High court found that the post in question has
‘sensitivity involved but since the organization where the petitioner would have been employed was under the Ministry of Defence catering to the requirements of the Armed Forces, the element of sovereignty of the nation comes into being.’

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.

News Update