The statement accurately describes a fundamental principle in the tort of malicious prosecution. Malicious prosecution is a civil wrong where a person initiates or continues a criminal or civil proceeding against another without reasonable and probable cause, and with malice, causing damage to the other person. To succeed in a claim for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove several essential elements, and the statement specifically addresses two crucial ones: the absence of reasonable and probable cause, and malice.

Elements of Malicious Prosecution:

1. Prosecution by the defendant: The defendant must have initiated or actively continued the legal proceedings.
2. Termination in favour of the plaintiff: The proceedings must have ended in the plaintiff's acquittal, discharge, or in some other way that indicates their innocence.
3. Absence of reasonable and probable cause: The defendant must have initiated the proceedings without an honest belief in the plaintiff's guilt and without reasonable grounds for such a belief.
4. Malice: The defendant must have acted with an improper or wrongful motive, not for the purpose of bringing a guilty person to justice.
5. Damage: The plaintiff must have suffered actual damage (e.g., to reputation, person, or property).

Why Acquittal Alone is Insufficient: The statement correctly asserts that "malice is not to be inferred merely from the acquittal of the plaintiff." An acquittal or discharge signifies that the prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, it does not automatically mean that the initial prosecution was baseless or malicious. There could be various reasons for an acquittal:

• Lack of sufficient evidence: The prosecution might have had reasonable grounds to initiate proceedings, but the evidence presented in court might have been insufficient to secure a conviction.
• Technicalities: The case might have failed on a legal technicality.
• Benefit of doubt: The accused might have been given the benefit of doubt, which is a cornerstone of criminal justice, without necessarily implying the prosecution was malicious.

Independent Proof of Absence of Probable Cause and Malice: Therefore, the burden lies squarely on the plaintiff to "prove independently of the acquittal that his prosecution was malicious and without probable cause."

• Absence of Reasonable and Probable Cause: This means the defendant, at the time of initiating the prosecution, did not have an honest belief in the plaintiff's guilt based on reasonable grounds. The defendant must have acted as a reasonable and prudent person would, considering the information available to them. If there were reasonable grounds for suspicion, even if the plaintiff was ultimately acquitted, the element of "absence of probable cause" might not be met.

• Malice: Malice, in the context of malicious prosecution, does not necessarily mean ill-will or personal animosity, though it can include that. It refers to any improper or wrongful motive other than a desire to bring a person to justice. For example, prosecuting someone to settle a personal score, to gain a business advantage, or to harass them would constitute malice. While the absence of probable cause can be strong evidence of malice, it is not conclusive. The plaintiff must present evidence to show that the defendant's dominant motive was improper.

Judicial Precedents: Indian courts have consistently upheld this principle. In cases like West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Dilip Kumar Ray (2007), the Supreme Court reiterated that merely because a person has been acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that the prosecution was malicious. The plaintiff must specifically plead and prove the absence of reasonable and probable cause and the presence of malice.

In conclusion, the statement accurately reflects the stringent requirements for proving malicious prosecution. Acquittal is a necessary but not sufficient condition. The plaintiff must go further and affirmatively demonstrate, through independent evidence, that the defendant lacked reasonable and probable cause for initiating the proceedings and was motivated by malice. This ensures that individuals are not unduly deterred from reporting crimes or initiating legal action out of fear of subsequent malicious prosecution claims.