1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 22.09.2011 Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice S.PALANIVELU Crl.RC.(MD).No.803 of 2011 M.Boger Booman ..Petitioner/A2 Vs. The State through:: The Inspector of Police, Kallidaikuruchi Police Station, Ambasamudram Taluk, (Crime No.69/2002) .. Respondent Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 and 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in S.C.No.566 of 2002 order passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Ambasamudram, dated 12.10.2004 and hold that the petitioner was a Juvenile at the time of the occurrence i.e. on 28.04.2002 and declare that the entire trial process of the petitioner in S.C.No.566 of 2002 as not legal. For Petitioner : M/s.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondent : Mr.P.Kandasamy, Government Advocate (Crl. side) O R D E R This Criminal Revision is preferred to call for the records related to the order passed in S.C. No.566 of 2002 dated 12.10.2004 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Ambasamudram and hold that the petitioner was a Juvenile at the time of the occurrence i.e. on 28.04.2002 and declare that the entire trial process of the petitioner in S.C.No.566 of 2002 as not legal and expunge the remark of acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt as that of Honourable acquittal. 2. The petitioner is the second accused in S.C.No.566 of 2002, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Ambasamudram along with others, he was charged under Sections 294(b), 307, 342 and 323 IPC. In the trial, P.W.1, who is alleged to have sustained injury in the occurrence, has stated that on 28.04.2002, at about 09.00 a.m., while he was in his field, two persons came running and assaulted him with aruval on his hand and leg and fled away from the scene of occurrence, that police came and obtained left thumb impression from him and that the accused did not assault him. On perusal of the evidence, the Court below has acquitted him from all the charges extending him benefit of doubt. 3. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent. 4. Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was juvenile on the date of occurrence, that his date of birth is 03.07.1985, that the trial itself is vitiated since he was tried by the regular Magistrate and not by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Juvenile Justice Board, that the petitioner has applied for the post of Police Constable Grade II and that the judgment even though ended in acquittal, will be as stigma in his future career and hence, he may be accorded honorary acquittal. 5. In support of his contention, 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". 6. He has also garnered support from a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2011) 4 SCC 644, (Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar), wherein in paragraphs 8 and 9 it has been held as follows: "8.We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that the cancellation of his candidature was illegal, but we wish to give our own opinion in the matter. When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often be condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives. 9.In this connection, we may refer to the character "Jean Valjean" in Victor Hugo's novel Les Miserables, in which for committing a minor offence of stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry family Jean Valjean was branded as a thief for his whole life. The modern approach should be to reform a person instead of branding him as a criminal all his life." 7. 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 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 ASST REGISTRAR ( T AND P ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR srm To 1. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Ambasamudram. 2. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai 1CC TO MR. T. LAJAPATHI ROY, ADVOCATE, SR: 32924: DM::2011:SEPTEMBER:27:: Crl.RC.(MD).No.803 of 2011 22.09.2011 3P;4C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/