According to the Supreme Court, a public employer can reject a candidate as unsuitable if he had, in the past, been acquitted of a serious crime merely on the benefit of doubt.
The case concerned a man acquitted of murder after witnesses turned hostile in Rajasthan in 2009. He was part of a group of people who ran a tractor over a woman and later knifed people who tried to resist them. However, he was not appointed to the post. He was acquitted of murder after the witnesses turned hostile in Rajasthan in 2009.
The mere fact of an acquittal would not suffice but rather it would depend on whether it is a clean acquittal based on total absence of evidence or in the criminal jurisprudence requiring the case to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, that parameter having not been met, benefit of doubt has been granted to the accused.
The person should be honorably acquitted of a heinous crime and not on the benefit of the doubt. Only then is a person considered eligible for public employment.
An honorable acquittal is when the accused is acquitted after full consideration of the evidence. Also, if the prosecution miserably fails to prove the charges leveled against the accused.
However, if this parameter is not met, the acquittal is based on the benefit of the doubt. The present case can hardly fall under the category of an honorable acquittal. The witnesses had turned hostile. Hence, the appointment was rejected.