Honourable acquittal classification is not mandatory for private individuals acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt.

The Petitioner was prosecuted under Section 83(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and Section 201 of the IPC

The prosecution alleged that the Petitioner conducted an illegal gambling (Satta-Patti) business through a juvenile, based on the juvenile’s memorandum statement

During the trial (Criminal Case No. 1007/2016), eight out of nine witnesses were examined; however, all independent witnesses turned hostile

Consequently, the Trial Court acquitted the Petitioner on 24.04.2018 by granting the "benefit of doubt"

The Petitioner, seeking an "honourable acquittal" to remove the stigma of "benefit of doubt," filed a Criminal Revision, which was dismissed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, on 23.03.2019

The Petitioner then moved the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC

1. Whether the Trial Court and Revisional Court erred in granting an acquittal based on "benefit of doubt" instead of an "honourable acquittal" when the case rested solely on an uncorroborated memorandum statement

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to modify the nature of the acquittal

The Court considered the scope of Section 482 of the CrPC, which grants inherent powers to the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice

It further referred to the evidentiary principle that a memorandum statement of a co-accused is inadmissible as substantive evidence unless corroborated by independent evidence or discovery

Finally, the Court applied the legal distinction between an "honourable acquittal" and an acquittal based on the "benefit of doubt," noting that the former is typically relevant in the context of employment or government service

The Petitioner argued that because the independent witnesses turned hostile and the case was built entirely on an inadmissible memorandum statement, the acquittal should be classified as "honourable"

The High Court, however, observed that while the independent witnesses did not support the prosecution’s version, they admitted their signatures on relevant documents, and the Investigating Officer fully supported the prosecution's actions

The Court reasoned that these factors indicated the case was not entirely fabricated

Furthermore, the Court noted that the Petitioner was not in government service, and thus there was no specific legal requirement or necessity to classify the acquittal as "honourable"

Since the lower courts had evaluated the evidence and reached a plausible conclusion, the High Court found no jurisdictional error, illegality, or perversity that would warrant the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482

It held that the grant of acquittal based on the "benefit of doubt" was justified under the circumstances and that no exceptional grounds existed to interfere with the concurrent findings of the subordinate courts

The Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Trial Court for compliance