In this article, Vasanth Ravichandran discusses the difference between Acquittal and Honorable acquittal.

Let us analyze the meaning of the term “Honorable acquittal” – a term coined by Indian jurisprudence. There exists a thin line between “acquittal” and “Honorable acquittal” which would be dealt in brief below. Further, we also focus on the remedies available to a person who was not honourably acquitted even when he is entitled to. Reference to some judicial pronouncements is also made so as make it authoritative.

Simpliciter acquittal and acquittal by extending the “benefit of doubt”

The trial court after giving due consideration to the evidence placed on record and examining the witness may do any of the following

• Convict the person.
• Acquit the person unconditionally. In other words, it is a simpliciter acquittal.
• Acquitting the person by extending the “benefit of doubt” or due to the failure on the prosecution side to prove the guilt “beyond reasonable doubt”.

In this regard, it would be commonsensical to quest for the reason behind the incorporation of the words “beyond reasonable doubt” and “benefit of doubt” while acquitting a person without which we cannot fully appreciate the distinction between acquittal and honorable acquittal.

At this juncture, it is worth referring to certain Articles of “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. Article 11 (1) provides that everyone charged with penal offences has a right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense. Further, Article 14(2) states that everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. Besides, Article 6(1) of “Convention on Civil and Political Rights” states that every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. Article 9(1) says that everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as is established by law. Article 14(2) envisages that everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law and shall be entitled to minimum guarantees detailed therein. Thus, great emphasis has been added to the age old maxim “innocent until proven guilty”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bachan Singh vs State Of Punjab (1980 (2) SCC 684) has held that the above requirements of these clauses are substantially the same as the guarantees or prohibitions contained in Articles 19 and 21 of our Constitution.

Thus, the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt except in the cases of insanity or statutory defense taken up by the accused. Further, from those set of facts narrated supra, it can also be inferred that the criminal courts can very well make use of the term “beyond reasonable doubt” and “benefit of doubt” while acquitting a person even though those words are not precisely defined under Indian Evidence act or any other procedural laws in force.

Understanding the concept of “Honorable acquittal”

The term “Honorable acquittal” is nowhere defined under our laws and it is the invention of Indian judiciary.

The factum of acquittal and the distinction between ‘honorable acquittal’ and ‘acquittal on benefit of doubt’, has been explained by the Division Bench of Madras High Court in W.A.No.1287 of 2008, dated 02.09.2009. The relevant portion is extracted below

“……..In the absence of any definition in the code of Criminal Procedure, it is very difficult to define what is the meaning of the words “honourable acquittal”. Again it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court could reasonably presume that if an accused is acquitted or discharged because of some technicality not having been complied with or on the ground that though there is some evidence against him, he must be acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt, it may not amount to an honourable acquittal. On the other hand, if an accused is acquitted after full consideration of evidence because the prosecution witnesses are disbelieved and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges, it would amount to an honourable acquittal. In the event the Court while acquitting an accused neither say that the case against him is false nor does it say that the accused has been acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt, then the acquittal may be honourable acquittal or acquittal of all blame.”

Further, The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deputy Inspector of Police and ors Vs. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598 had the opportunity to discuss in brief about the “Honorable acquittal”. The said Judgement inter alia reads as follows:

“…. The meaning of the expression ‘honourable acquittal’ came up for consideration before this Court in Management of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi v. Bhopal Singh Panchal (1994) 1 SCC 541………… It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression ‘honourably acquitted’. When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted”

Thus, from the findings of the courts extracted above, it can be apparently inferred that if an accused is acquitted not because of the fact that he is innocent but owing to the failure on the part of prosecution to prove the guilt with sufficient evidence, it would not be considered as Honorable acquittal. In other words, if an accused is acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt, then it would not amount to Honorable acquittal. But, on the other hand if an accused is acquitted after giving full consideration to the evidence placed on record and if the court is of the opinion that prima facie no case is made out against the accused, it may very well come within the ambit of the term “Honorable acquittal”.

One interesting thing to note in “honorable acquittal” is that even if we apply the principle of “preponderance of probability” charges cannot be proved against the accused.

Remedies available to person who has not been “Honorably acquitted” even when he is entitled to the same

The next question which arises for consideration is when a criminal court instead of acquitting an accused simpliciter, if inappropriately employs the term “acquittal by giving benefit of doubt” or “acquittal as there is no proof beyond reasonable doubt”, “What is the remedy available for the accused?

When a finding recorded in an order is adverse to his interest and contrary to law, the aggrieved person should not be left in lurch without a remedy. He should not be made to carry the stigma about his character throughout his life. This would certainly result in civil consequence as it relates to his moral character. Therefore, he has an incumbent right to get such adverse findings expunged.

The Division Bench of Madras High Court in M.Krishnan Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2014 (3) MWN (Cr.) 203 (DB) has held that accused cannot go for an appeal seeking to change the acquittal into “Honorable acquittal”. Only the state (the prosecution side) or the victim has the right to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal.

Now, Section 401 (4) of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “code”) provides that person will not have the right to revision if he has the right to appeal. This can also be understood in such a way that a person who has no right to appeal has the right to revision provided it falls within the parameters set forth under section 397 of the code. If we scrutinize the said provision, it states that the High court has the power to call for the records and examine the records of the inferior courts and verify the legality of the findings or orders passed. Here if a person is aggrieved by the adverse findings made by the court, then he can very well exercise Revision Jurisdiction of High Court and get the adverse remarks expunged. This view has been observed in Crl. R.C No. 684 of 2014 by the Hon’ble Madras High Court wherein the court had allowed a revision application filed by the petitioner seeking to remove the adverse findings in the order made by trial court wherein he was acquitted by extending the “benefit of doubt” even though there is no evidence to prove his guilt.