1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 25.08.2011 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU Crl.R.C.(MD).No.707 of 2011 K.Koodalingam ... Petitioner/6th Accused Vs The State through the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirumangalam,Thirumangalam Taluk Police, Madurai District, Crime No.105 of 2007. ... Respondent/Complainant Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 and 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in Spl.S.C.No.2 of 2008 dated 18.02.2010 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (P.C.R.) Madurai and expunge the remark of acquittal on benefit of doubt and term it as a honorary acquittal for the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr. A.Haja Mohideen For Respondent : Mr.P.Kandasamy Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) O R D E R This Criminal Revision is preferred to call for the records in Spl.S.C.No.2 of 2008 dated 18.02.2010 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (P.C.R.) Madurai and expunge the remark of acquittal on benefit of doubt and term it as honorary acquittal for the petitioner. 2. Heard both sides. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 28.05.2007 at about 23.15 hours at Nadukottai Village, the accused party formed themselves with unlawful assembly indulged in rioting and also caused hurt one Anand @ Sivanandam (S.C. Community), criminally intimidated him and also uttered the community name with intend to insult him and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 506(ii) I.P.C. r/w. Section 3(2)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Act. 4. After considering the evidence on record, the learned III Additional District Judge, Madurai acquitted all the accused extending the benefit of doubt. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who is one of the accused in this case has applied for the post of police constable and his selection is rejected, on the ground that if the candidate was acquitted on extending the benefit of doubt, it has to be treated as that he is involved in the criminal case. The petitioner has filed this revision for honourable acquittal. 6. On perusal of the contents of the judgment, it transfers that all the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and P.W.1, who is the alleged eye-witness in this case has deposed before the Court that when he was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 going to see dance program with his friends, somebody has inflicted injuries on him. P.Ws.2 and 3, who are alleged eye witnesses also stated that they do not known the occurrence. In the above said discussion, the judgment of acquittal came to be passed. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order of this Court dated 01.04.2008 in Crl.R.C(MD)No.369 of 2008, wherein the learned Single Judge following an earlier Judgment of this Court has held as follows: "A careful perusal of the deposition of all these witnesses would go to show that no witness has said anything about these two accused. Not even their presence has been spoken to by any of the witnesses. When that be so, the learned Sessions Judge should have segregated these two accused and to have acquitted them honourably and not on giving benefit of doubt as it was down in the case of other accused against benefit of doubt as it was down in the case of other accused against whom there is some evidence. The learned counsel would rely on the judgment of this Court in SOMASUNDARAM VS. THE STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MELUR POLICE STATION, MADURAI (CRL.R.C.No.289 of 2008 dated 28.02.2008), wherein in a similar case, the learned Single Judge of this Court, after referring to various judgments of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expunged the remarks". 8. In view of the above said circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the order of acquittal can be modified to one of the acquittal honourably. 9. In the result, the Criminal Revision case is allowed and the finding of the lower Court that the petitioner is acquitted on benefit of doubt is modified to the effect that the petitioner shall stand acquitted honourably. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1. The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, (PCR) Madurai. 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirumangalam, Thirumangalam Taluk Police, Madurai District. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai Copy to : The Section Officer, Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai akv : : GH : 13.09.2011 : 2p/5c Crl.R.C.(MD).No.707 of 2011 25.08.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/