Technical acquittal and honorable acquittal are two different things: Supreme Court


The Supreme Court rejected the plea plea of ​​a certain Vinod Kumar who was seeking appointment as a chemical processor (semi-skilled) at Ordnance Factory, Itarsi on the basis that his acquittal of the offenses punishable under the Sections 376, 384, 509 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act was based on the benefit of the doubt and it was not an honorable or clean acquittal.

Bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Judge Surya Kant upheld the contested judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

Judge Surya Kant said posting nude photos of a girl on social media is an act of absolute shame. To humiliate and violate the dignity of a woman is a heinous act.

The plaintiff’s lawyer argued before the bench that the allegations of uploading nude photos of a girl had not been proven by the trial court.

Judge Kant also added that as far as the benefit of the doubt is concerned, the court infers that the girl was of age and not a minor.

To which Judge Surya Kant said the Sessions Judge admitted discovering that the video clip had been uploaded by the petitioner. It seems the consent was there.

Judge Chandrachud argued that Vinod may be eligible for other services, but when it comes to the post of defense, the petitioner has bad moral turpitude

Justice Kant argued that the Supreme Court had previously distinguished between technical acquittal and honorable acquittal.

Vinod Kumar had preferred a request for special leave challenging the judgment of the Madras High Court, in which the judgment of the Madras High Court found that this judgment of acquittal was based more on the benefit of the doubt and that, by Therefore, Petitioner Vinod Kumar is not a clean and honorable acquittal.

The Divisional Bench of Judge Sheel Nagu and Judge Sunita Yadav of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh had emphatically observed in paragraph 4 of the judgment that “it is now well established that unless acquittal in the criminal trial is honorable and clean, the employer has sufficient discretion to declare a candidate unsuitable for employment, subject to various other factors such as the sensitivity and requirements of the position concerned.

It was only that the trial court, after engaging in evidence collection, came to the conclusion that the prosecutor’s original complaint appeared to be false. Thus, the prosecution story was not rightly dismissed or the offense refuted by the divisional bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

Vinod Kumar attacked the CAT order, Jabalpur Bench went on 21.12.2021 to Madras High Court.

Vinod Tiwari’s candidacy was canceled based on his criminal background check.

It was discovered that although the petitioner was acquitted on 26.05.2017 of charges of offenses punishable under Articles 376, 384, 1,509 of the ICC, read together with Article 4 of the POCSO Act.

The seat of two judges of the Madras High Court found that the post in question has
“sensitivity involved, but since the organization where the petitioner was allegedly employed was under the Ministry of Defense to serve the needs of the armed forces, the element of nation sovereignty arises.”

Source link


About Author

Comments are closed.