1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.09.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU Crl.R.C.(MD) No.304 of 2011 M.Kesavan ... Petitioner/Accused -2 Vs State rep.by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Thalavaipuram Police Station, Virudhunagar District. (Crime No.22 of 2008) ... Respondent/complainant Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 read with 401 and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in judgment in C.C.No.103 of 2008 dated 17.02.2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District and expunge the remark of acquittal of benefit of doubt and give honorary acquittal. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondent : Mr.Kandasamy Govt.Advocate (Crl.side) O R D E R This Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 read with 401 and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in C.C.No.103 of 2008 dated 17.02.2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District and expunge the remark of acquittal of 'benefit of' doubt and give 'honorary acquittal'. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that in the evening at about 9.00 p.m while the complainant party sitting in the front of their house, the accused picked up a quarrel with them and caused bleeding injury on the head of Muggan. The prosecution witnesses sustained injuries due to the assault made on them by the accused party. Hence, one Muthukalai was examined as P.W.1, who lodged a complaint. Based on which, the first and the second accused therein (the petitioner herein) were charged under Sections 147, 323(2) counts, the third accused therein was charge sheeted under Sections 148,324,506(2) IPC and the fourth and fifth accused charged under Sections 147 and 323 IPC. 3. The case was tried before the Court below and in the trial, the injured witnesses as well as the witnesses P.Ws.5 to 8 turned hostile to the prosecution, even though the injured witnesses have stated about the occurrence and the Court below has observed in its judgment that there are remarkable discrepancies about the complaint and the oral evidence. It is further observed therein that there is no convincing evidence to show which accused caused injury on whom. Finding is also recorded by the Court below that the evidence of the injured witnesses are not properly corroborated by the other evidence. Extending the benefit of doubt, the trial Court has acquitted all the accused of all the charges levelled against them. There was no appeal from the said judgment. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner is the second accused in the case. Now, he has been selected for the post of 'Jail Warder'(men) for the year 2010. Since he was involved in the criminal case, after seeing the judgment copy, the authorities are not inclined to select the petitioner for the post. Hence, an 'honourable acquittal' may be accorded to the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits. 5. In support of his contentions, he placed 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" Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side). 6. 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. 7. 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 (CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To: 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam. 2.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur. +1. CC to Mr.R.Alagumani, Advocate, SR.No.30139 ssm Crl.R.C.(MD) No.304 of 2011 06.09.2011 TR : 15.09.2011: 2p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/