1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 31.03.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.R.C.(MD)No.72 of 2011 Arunkumar @ Arun ... Petitioner/Accused No.2 Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Puthukottai Police Station, Madurai District in Crime No.142 of 2009. ... Respondent/Complainant Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C. against the acquittal and set aside the same as Honourary acquittal in C.C.No.47 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.VI, Madurai dated 06.12.2010. For Petitioner : M/s. K.Thiruppathy For Respondent : Mr.P.Rajendran, Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) O R D E R The revision petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 in C.C.No.47 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, which arose out of Crime No.142 of 2009 registered by the Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Pudukottai Police Station, Madurai. 2. According to the prosecution, the petitioner along with three other accused at about 07.30 a.m., on 24.04.2009, on account of previous enmity, attacked the P.Ws.1 and 2. The overt act attributed against this petitioner is that he said to have attacked the P.W.1/de-facto complainant with a knife on the rear side of his head. On the complaint given by the de-facto complainant/P.W.1, the respondent herein registered the said case and after investigation filed a final report. As per the final report, accused Nos.1 and 2 were charged for the alleged commission of the offences under Sections 341, 324 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and accused Nos.3 and 4 were charged for the alleged commission of the offences under Sections 341 and 323 and 506(ii) I.P.C. 3. The final report was taken on file in C.C.No.47 of 2010 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai and the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them. 4. The prosecution in order to sustain their case, examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P9 and also marked M.Os.1 and 2 series. 5. All the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances made out against them on the evidence tended by the prosecution and they denied it. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence let in and no document was marked. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 6. The trial Court on taking into consideration that except the Investigating Officer all other witnesses turned hostile, had acquitted all the accused by awarding benefit of doubt vide order dated 06.12.2010 in C.C.No.47 of 2010. In the interregnum, applications were called for selection to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and the petitioner has also submitted his application and as per the communication sent by Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board dated 04.08.2010, the petitioner was called to appear for the purpose of certificate verification, physical measurement and endurance test. The revision petitioner apprehending that by virtue of the order dated 06.12.2010 made in C.C.No.47 of 2010 acquitting him by awarding benefit of doubt, he may be excluded from the selection process, has approached this Court by filing the present revision petition praying for honourable acquittal instead of acquittal awarding benefit of doubt. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has draw the attention of this Court to the above said order especially to paragraph No.8, wherein the trial Court has recorded the fact that the eye- witnesses viz., P.Ws.1 and 2 did not support the prosecution case and therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused. 8. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that though the trial Court has recorded the said finding in paragraph No.8 by its order, subsequently acquitted them by awarding benefit of doubt and the same is unsustainable for the reason that except the Investigating Officer, all the prosecution witnesses especially the material witnesses viz., P.Ws.1 and 2 turned hostile. 9. On the said submission, the Court heard the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) also. 10. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that except the Investigating Officer, all the witnesses especially the material witnesses viz., P.Ws.1 and 2, who said to have been injured on account of attack made by the accused turned hostile. The witnesses spoken about the recovery and seizure, had also turned hostile and thus none of the witnesses had supported the case of the prosecution. 11. In the considered opinion of this Court, the facts and circumstances of the case would disclose that the revision petitioner/accused should have honourably acquitted. A Division Bench of this Court in the issue reported in 2009 CIJ 1110 Madras in The Director General of Police v. D.Mahadevan held that, "With the limited purpose to find out whether an accused has been acquitted on the ground of "benefit of doubt" or "acquitted honourably", the Court may glance through the judgment. If the acquittal, though speaks of benefit of doubt, still it may be a case of no evidence as well. In such case, it is an acquittal on merits, which may also be called as honourable acquittal." The ratio laid down in the above cited judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. 12. Since the prosecution had failed to establish its case as the witnesses turned hostile, this Court is of the view that the revision https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 petitioner is to be acquitted honourably. In the result, the order of acquittal awarding benefit of doubt in the order dated 06.12.2010 made in C.C.No.47 of 2010 is modified to one of honourable acquittal. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P & A) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.VI, Madurai. 2. The Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Puthukottai Police Station, 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. +1 CC to M/s K.Thiruppathi, Advocate, SR.No.12346 akv Crl.R.C.(MD)No.72 of 2011 31.03.2011 TR : 12.04.2011 : 3p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/