Acquittal is a judicial determination that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged, resulting in their discharge from the criminal proceeding. Under Indian law, acquittal is governed by Sections 232 and 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Sections 255 and 258 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).
Legal definition
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides for acquittal at different stages of a criminal trial:
Section 232: If, after taking the evidence for the prosecution, examining the accused and hearing the prosecution and the defence on the point, the Judge considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, the Judge shall record an order of acquittal.
Section 235(1): After hearing arguments and points of law (if any), the Judge shall give a judgment in the case. If the accused is not convicted, the Judge shall record an order of acquittal.
Separate provisions govern acquittal in warrant cases before a Magistrate (Section 248 CrPC) and in summons cases (Section 255 CrPC).
New law equivalent: Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), Section 255 corresponds to Section 232 CrPC (acquittal when no evidence of guilt exists after prosecution evidence), and Section 258 corresponds to Section 235 CrPC (judgment of acquittal or conviction after full trial). The substantive position remains unchanged.
How courts have interpreted this term
K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 1962 SC 1788]
The Supreme Court examined the scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction over acquittals. The Court held that the High Court does not have the power to convert an acquittal into a conviction in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC. This ruling reinforced the principle that an order of acquittal carries significant weight and cannot be lightly disturbed.
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [(2007) 4 SCC 415]
The Supreme Court laid down the principles governing appeals against acquittal. The Court held that an appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded, but there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused which is further reinforced by an order of acquittal. The appellate court must bear in mind that in case of doubt, the benefit goes to the accused.
Babu v. State of Kerala [(2010) 9 SCC 189]
The Supreme Court reiterated that while exercising appellate power against acquittal, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
Why this matters
An order of acquittal carries far-reaching consequences in Indian criminal law. Once acquitted, the accused is entitled to the constitutional protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. This means an acquittal after a full trial ordinarily bars a second prosecution for the same offence.
For practitioners, the distinction between acquittal at different stages is significant. An acquittal under Section 232 CrPC (Section 255 BNSS) occurs at the close of prosecution evidence when the judge finds no case to answer — this is conceptually different from an acquittal under Section 235 CrPC (Section 258 BNSS) after a full trial including defence evidence. However, both carry the same legal effect of terminating the criminal proceeding in favour of the accused.
The State retains the right to appeal against an acquittal under Section 378 CrPC (Section 419 BNSS), but the appellate court proceeds with a strong presumption in favour of the accused's innocence, reinforced by the trial court's finding. This makes overturning acquittals significantly harder than challenging convictions, reflecting the criminal law's deep commitment to protecting individuals from wrongful punishment.
Related terms
Opposite:
Related procedures:
Broader concepts:
Frequently asked questions
Can the State appeal against an acquittal?
Yes. Under Section 378 CrPC (Section 419 BNSS), the State may appeal against an order of acquittal to the High Court. However, the appellate court will not interfere unless the trial court's findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or result from a misreading of material evidence. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the presumption of innocence is strengthened by an acquittal.
Does acquittal mean the accused is innocent?
An acquittal means the prosecution has failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It does not necessarily amount to a finding of innocence. However, for all legal purposes, the accused is treated as not guilty and is entitled to the protections flowing from the acquittal, including protection against double jeopardy.
Can a person be tried again after acquittal?
Generally, no. Article 20(2) of the Constitution protects against double jeopardy. However, there are exceptions — if the acquittal is set aside on appeal by the State, the case may be remanded for retrial. Additionally, if the acquittal was obtained by fraud or if there is fresh evidence, a review may be permissible in exceptional circumstances.
What is the difference between acquittal and discharge?
Discharge under Section 227 CrPC (Section 250 BNSS) occurs before the trial begins, when the court finds no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Acquittal occurs after the trial commences, either at the close of prosecution evidence or after a full trial. A discharge does not attract the protection of double jeopardy, whereas an acquittal after a full trial does.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.