1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 21.10.2010 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice S.TAMILVANAN Crl.R.C. (MD).No.578 of 2010 Ravisankar .. Petitioner/A2 vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Nadukavery Police Station, Thanjavur District. .. Respondent Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 (1) r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru in C.C.No.178 of 2008 dated 30.12.2008 and set aside the judgment of acquittal by giving benefit of doubt and to record honourable acquittal in favour of the petitioner. For petitioner : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan For respondent : Mr.S.Muthu Venkatesan Govt. Advocate (Crl. side) O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/A2 as well as the learned Govt. Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner, who was arrayed as A2 in the case in C.C.No.178 of 2008, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru. 3. As per the Judgment dated 30.12.2008, the Court below recorded acquittal, however, the petitioner/A2 was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt in favour of the petitioner/A2. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the Judgment of the Court below. It is seen that charge was framed under Sections 294(b) and 323 IPC against the petitioner/A2 and he had pleaded not guilty. Hence, the case was posted for trial. 5. It is seen that on the side of the prosecution, four witnesses were examined. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, except, P.W.4, the Investigating Officer, other prosecution witnesses, did not support the prosecution case. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the impugned Judgment, wherein the learned Judicial Magistrate, has found that P.W.1 to 3 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Even as per the evidence of de-facto complainant, who was examined as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 P.W.1, a group of persons had come and attacked him but he could not identify the petitioner/A2 and the other accused. Only the Investigating Officer, P.W.4 deposed the evidence, which was not corroborated by any independent witness. Hence, no incriminating circumstance arose after the evidence of the said prosecution and accordingly the was closed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is no prima facie case made against the petitioner and therefore, the Court below could not acquitted the petitioner by giving benefit of doubt, but could have recorded acquittal on the ground that the prosecution has not established its case. 7. Learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondent has not disputed the fact that except the Investigating Officer, P.W.4, all other witnesses including the defacto complainant did not support the prosecution case. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court below could have recorded acquittal on the ground that the prosecution case has not been established, however, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru has recorded acquittal by giving benefit of doubt. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submitted that the case was foisted against the petitioner / A2 and that he is searching for Government job. Since the petitioner / A2 was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt, it is a stigma against the petitioner in getting the job. 10. It is an admitted fact that even the defacto complainant, who was examined as P.W.1 did not support the prosecution case and other witnesses, except the Investigating Officer, who was examined as P.W.4 deposed evidence against the prosecution case, as per the Judgment rendered by the Court below. 11. In such circumstances, the Court below could have recorded acquittal on the ground that the prosecution has not established the guilt against the accused. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that recording acquittal giving benefit of doubt to the accused is unwarranted, since all the witnesses, including the defacto complainant, except the Investigating Officer did not support the prosecution case. 12. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find it just and reasonable to allow the criminal revision petition and modify the Judgment rendered by the Court below, whereby the acquittal recorded by the court below by giving benefit of doubt is modified and ordered that the petitioner was honourably acquitted, since the prosecution has not established the case against the petitioner / A2. 13. This Criminal Revision Petition is allowed with the above modification. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl. side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1. The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru, Thanjavur District. 2. The The Inspector of Police, Nadukavery Police Station, Tirunelveli District. Copy To: The Section Officer, Criminal Section (Records), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Crl.R.C.(MD).No.578 of 2010 21-10-2010 skn RJ/18.11.2010 3p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/