Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Urn: Crlmp / 7252U / 2023Binder Singh @ … vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:24478) on 18 May, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:24478]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3460/2023
Binder Singh @ Sharwan Singh S/o Shri Kishan Singh, Aged
About 40 Years, R/o Vpo 59F, Tehsil Shri Karanpur, District Sri
Ganganagar. 335073 (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RDSS Kharlia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, DyGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
18/05/2026
1. The instant misc. petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure has been instituted by the petitioner laying
challenge to the judgment dated 25.10.2016 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri
Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.31/2008, whereby the petitioner,
though acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 148,
307, 325, 324 and 323 read with Section 149 IPC, was extended
the benefit of doubt by the learned trial Court.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner was prosecuted
along with six other accused persons in Sessions Case No.31/2008
for offences under Sections 307, 323, 324, 325 and 148 read with
Section 149 IPC and came to be acquitted by the learned trial
Court vide judgment dated 25.10.2016 by extending benefit of
(Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 11:15:52 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 02:07:56 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24478] (2 of 8) [CRLMP-3460/2023]
doubt. The petitioner has instituted the present misc. petition
seeking modification of the nature of acquittal from “benefit of
doubt” to an “honourable acquittal” on the ground that there was
absolutely no incriminating evidence against him and most of the
prosecution witnesses had either turned hostile or were not
examined. It is averred that despite absence of any specific
allegation against the petitioner, his services on the post of
Patwari came to be terminated owing to the observations recorded
in the judgment of acquittal. The petitioner thus seeks declaration
of a clean acquittal contending that he was falsely implicated in
the case due to prior enmity and there existed zero evidence
connecting him with the alleged offence.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
and learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State as
well as perused the material available on record.
4. It is trite law that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not
classify acquittals into compartments such as “honourable
acquittal”, “clean acquittal” or “acquittal by benefit of doubt”.
These expressions are not statutory expressions known to the
criminal jurisprudence embodied under the Code. They are, at
best, phraseologies occasionally employed in judicial discourse
while appreciating evidence and recording conclusions. In the eye
of law “Acquittal means Acquittal”, once a competent criminal
court records an order of acquittal, the consequence flowing
therefrom is singular and unambiguous, the accused stands
acquitted.
(Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 11:15:52 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 02:07:56 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24478] (3 of 8) [CRLMP-3460/2023]
4.1 The foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence is that
every accused is presumed to be innocent unless the prosecution
discharges its burden of proving the charge beyond all reasonable
doubt. The burden never shifts. An accused is not required to
establish his innocence with mathematical precision. The moment
the prosecution fails to travel the distance required by law and is
unable to prove the accusation beyond reasonable doubt, the
inevitable legal consequence is acquittal. Thus, when a criminal
court records that the prosecution has failed to establish the
charge beyond reasonable doubt and consequently extends benefit
of doubt to the accused, such acquittal cannot be treated as
inferior, diluted or stigmatic in nature.
4.2 Indeed, the presumption of innocence, which existed at the
inception of the trial, does not get weakened after acquittal;
rather, it stands reinforced and strengthened by the judicial
determination rendered by a competent court of law after full-
fledged trial. The acquittal, therefore, restores the legal status and
dignity of the accused in full measure. Merely because an
employee was once subjected to criminal prosecution cannot
furnish a valid foundation for the State authorities to perpetually
view him with suspicion or to visit him with adverse civil
consequences, particularly after his acquittal has attained finality.
The State, being a model employer, cannot be permitted to act on
conjectures, surmises or residual suspicion contrary to the verdict
of a competent criminal court. Consequently, once the petitioner
stands acquitted in the criminal case, the mere use of the
(Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 11:15:52 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 02:07:56 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24478] (4 of 8) [CRLMP-3460/2023]
expression “benefit of doubt” in the judgment cannot become a
tool in the hands of the authorities to deny him legitimate service
benefits or to create artificial impediments in his service career.
5. The co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Avinash
Kumar Dhilan Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. [S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 1011/2024 decided on 27.03.2025] has elaborately
discussed the concept of acquittal and how these are just phrases
used by the Courts below. For the ease of reference, the relevant
paragraph of the judgment are reproduced herein below:-
“18. Similar controversy was involved in a case titled
Sukhjit Singh v. State of Punjab3. Vide a judgment
rendered therein incidentally by me, while as a Judge of
Punjab and Haryana High Court, which in turn is based on
Division Bench judgments of two different High Courts4. For
ready reference, relevant thereof is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
“12. Every acquittal is honourable acquittal. There is
nothing in the Criminal Procedure Code nor is there any
rule of criminal jurisprudence for treating the effects
and consequences of an honourable acquittal from an
acquittal on failure of the prosecution to prove the case
beyond reasonable doubt.
13. A Division Bench of this Court in a case titled as
Shashi Kumar v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and
another, 2005 (1) SCT 576 relying in turn on another
Division Bench of Madras High Court has held that the
terms honourable acquittal or fully exonerated
unknown in the Criminal Jurisprudence. His Lordship
S.S. Nijjar, J. (as he then was of this Court) speaking
for the Division Bench observed as below:-
7. In any event, the terms “honourable acquittal”
or “fully exonerated” are unknown in the Code of
Criminal Procedure or in Criminal Jurisprudence.
These terms came up for consideration before a
Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the
case of Union of India v. Jayaram, AIR 1960
Madras 325. Rajammannar, C.J. Delivering the
(Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 11:15:52 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 02:07:56 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24478] (5 of 8) [CRLMP-3460/2023]
judgment of the Division Bench observed as
under:-
There is no conception like “honourable acquittal”
in Criminal Procedure Code The onus of
establishing the guilt of accused is on the
prosecution, and if it fails to establish the guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled
to be acquitted.
Clause (b) of Article 193 of the Civil Service
Regulations which says that when a Government
servant who was under suspension is honourably
acquitted, he may be given the full salary to which
he would have been entitled if he had not been
suspended applies only to the case of
departmental Inquiry.
Where the servant was suspended because there
was a criminal prosecution against him, and he
was acquitted therein, and reinstated he is entitled
under the general law, to the full pay during the
period of his suspension. To such a case Article
193(b) does not apply.”
8. The aforesaid judgment of the Madras High
Court was considered and followed by this Court in
the case of Jagmohan Lal v. State of Punjab
through Secy, to Punjab Govt. Irrigation and
others, AIR 1967 (54) Punjab and Haryana 422
(punjab). In that case, on acquittal, the petitioner
was reinstated in service, but his period of
suspension was not treated as the period spent on
duty. He had, therefore, filed writ petition under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India
claiming that he was entitled to full pay and
allowances for the period of his suspension.
Considering the impact of Rules 7.3,7.5 and 7.6 of
the Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol.I Part-1, it was
observed as follows:-
(2) XXX XXX XXX
The interpretation which has been put by the
Government on the rule is incorrect. The blame
which attached to the petitioner was that there
was a criminal charge against him under which he
was standing his trial. The moment he is acquitted
of the charge, he is acquitted of the blame. In(Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 11:15:52 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 02:07:56 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24478] (6 of 8) [CRLMP-3460/2023]criminal law, the Courts are called upon to decide
whether the prosecution has succeeded in bringing
home the guilt to the accused. The moment the
Court is not satisfied regarding the guilt of the
accused, he is acquitted. Whether a person is
acquitted after being given a benefit of doubt or
for that reasons, the result is that his guilt is not
proved. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not
contemplate honourable acquittal. The only words
known to the Code are ‘discharged’ or ‘acquitted’.
The effect of a person being discharged or
acquitted is the same in the eyes of law. Since,
according to the accepted notions of imparting
criminal justice, the Court has to be satisfied
regarding the guilt of the accused beyond a
reasonable doubt, it is generally held that there
being a doubt in the mind of the court, the
accused is acquitted.
I am, therefore, quite clear in my mind that the
intention underlying Rule 7.5 can be no other
except this” the moment the criminal charge on
account of which an officer was suspended fails in
a court of law, he should be deemed to be
acquitted of the blame. Any other interpretation
would defeat the very purpose of the rule. It is
futile to expect a finding of either honourable
acquittal or complete innocence in a judgment of
acquittal. The reason is obvious; the criminal
courts are not concerned to find the innocence of
the accused. They are only concerned to find
whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving
beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the
accused.””
6. The factum of having undergone a criminal trial, by itself,
cannot be treated as a disqualification nor can it be employed to
adversely affect his service conditions including ACR, promotion,
pay fixation, retiral benefits, seniority or other consequential
entitlements. Needless to observe that unless a departmental
enquiry, independent of the criminal proceedings, is initiated and
the delinquent employee is found guilty therein in accordance with
(Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 11:15:52 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 02:07:56 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24478] (7 of 8) [CRLMP-3460/2023]law, no adverse inference can be drawn merely on account of his
previous prosecution in a criminal case. Criminal proceedings and
departmental proceedings operate in distinct fields. Therefore, in
absence of any finding of guilt recorded in a duly constituted
departmental enquiry, the acquittal of the petitioner in the
criminal case must receive full effect and cannot be diluted by
administrative suspicion or interpretative semantics attached to
the nature of acquittal. This Court is of the considered opinion that
once the competent criminal court has exonerated the petitioner,
the respondents are not justified in treating the said acquittal as a
blemish so as to obstruct or prejudice his service career in any
manner whatsoever.
7. Consequently, while declining the prayer seeking substitution
or modification of the expression “benefit of doubt” into
“honourable acquittal”, this Court deems it appropriate to clarify
and direct that the acquittal recorded in favour of the petitioner
vide judgment dated 25.10.2016 shall be treated as a complete
acquittal in the eyes of law and the respondents shall not draw
any adverse inference merely because the learned trial Court
employed the expression “benefit of doubt” while recording
acquittal.
7.1 It is further directed that the respondents shall not deny,
withhold or adversely affect the petitioner’s service benefits,
continuity in service, seniority, promotional avenues, pay fixation,
retiral dues or any other consequential benefits solely on account
of the petitioner having faced criminal prosecution which
(Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 11:15:52 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 02:07:56 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:24478] (8 of 8) [CRLMP-3460/2023]culminated in acquittal. The respondents are further restrained
from treating the impugned judgment of acquittal as a stigma or
blemish upon the service career of the petitioner. However, it is
made clear that this order shall not preclude the competent
authority from proceeding independently in accordance with law, if
any departmental proceedings, separate and distinct from the
criminal prosecution, are otherwise permissible and maintainable
under the applicable service rules.
8. In view of the above discussion, the instant misc. petition is
disposed of.
9. Stay petition and all pending applications also stands
disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
139-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 11:15:52 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 02:07:56 AM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
