1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 18.08.2011 Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice S.PALANIVELU Crl.RC.(MD).No.684 of 2011 S.Muthukumar .. Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs. The State Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Police Station, Paramakudi (Crime No.401 of 2005) .. Respondent/Complainant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 and 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in S.T.C.No.99 of 2006, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, dated 07.05.2007 and expunge the remark of acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt as that of Honorary acquittal. For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthik 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 S.T.C.No.99 of 2006, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, dated 07.05.2007 and expunge the remark of acquittal on benefit of doubt and modify it as Honorary acquittal for the petitioner. 2. Heard both sides. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 27.12.2005 at about 11.15 p.m., there was wordy altercation ensued between the accused and the complaint in which the accused are alleged to have hurled filthy language at the complainant and also damaged the door of the house, besides criminally intimated them. The case was registered under Sections 294(b),427 and 506(1) IPC. Before the Court below, P.W.1 the complainant and eye witness P.W.2 turned hostile to the prosecution during the cross-examination. Hence, the Court below has acquitted them of all the charges giving them 'benefit of doubt'. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. 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". 5. 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. 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 (Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi. 2. The Sub Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Police Station, Paramakudi. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthik, Advocate (SR.No.28213) Crl.RC.(MD).No.684 of 2011 18.08.2011 ssm NSV/30.8.11/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/