1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.R.C.(MD)No.162 of 2011 Nelson Mandela @ Nelson .. Petitioner/Accused NO.4 Vs. The State rep. by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Muttaiyapuram Police Station, (In Crime NO.523 of 2009) .. Respondent/Complainant Prayer : Criminal revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the judgment dated 14.02.2011 in C.C.No.4 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Thoothukudi and expunge the observation of the acquittal based on benefit of doubt made to the 4th accused/petitioner herein and term the same as Honorary acquittal. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Pethu Rajesh For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi,Govt. Advocate, Crl.Side O R D E R This revision is filed against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Thoothukudi, in C.C.No.4 of 2010 by an order dated 14.02.2011. 2. The petitioner was the 4th accused in C.C.No.4 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Thoothukudi, wherein five accused put up for trial stand acquitted under judgment dated 14.02.2011. All the accused were given the benefit of doubt. 3. The alleged occurrence was that on 26.11.2009 at about 12.30 p.m., owing to the previous enmity between the accused and the defacto complainant, the accused 1 and 2 assaulted P.W.1 and the accused 3 and 4 caused injuries to P.Ws. 2 and 3. The 1st accused was charged of offence under Sections 147, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) I.P.C. The 2nd accused was charged of offence under Sections 147, 341, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) I.P.C.. The 3rd accused was charged of offence under Sections 147, 323 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act. The 4th accused was charged of offence under Sections 147, 341, 323 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act. The 5th accused was charged of offence under Section 147, 324 and 506(ii) I.P.C. On appreciation of the material before it, the lower Court has afforded the accused benefit of doubt. The petitioner herein, who is now https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 aged about 27 years and who fears prospects of employment and a poor future owing thereto seeks relief. 4. Heard Mr.Mr.P.Pethu Rajesh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr.R.M.Anbunithi, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that unless the acquittal of the petitioner is an honourable one, the petitioner's future prospects in life would be severely impaired. In support of his contention, he has relied on an order of this Court dated 01.04.2008 made in Crl.RC.No.369 of 2008, wherein a learned Single Judge has held as follows:- "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.269 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. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners seek public employment and if the said remark in the Judgment of the Lower Court is not expunged, that would carry a stigma and would be disqualification for them to seek employment. The Principles stated in the above said Judgment are squarely applicable to the facts of this case. In view of the above position, in my considered opinion, the observation of the learned III Additional Sessions cum PCR Court, Madurai, that the acquittal is on the basis of benefit of doubt requires to be modified so as to record the acquittal honourable. For all the reasons stated above, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the finding of the Lower Court that the petitioners are acquitted on giving benefit of doubt is modified and the petitioners shall stand acquitted honourably." 6.The Apex Court repeatedly has held that the effect of an acquittal is that it erases the stigma attached to commission of an offence. In AIR 1976 SC 133 (Dhilp KUmar Sharma and other Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh), it is informed by the Apex Court as follows: 9. .... An order of acquittal in regard to the previous offence wipes out the guilt and turpitude attaching to the previous conviction, for, the true implication of an acquittal is as if the offender did not commit the offence for which he was tried, no matter whether the acquittal is founded on benefit of doubt or rests upon an overall rejection of the prosecution case. The sequiter that the order of acquittal implies the innocence of the accused is not dependent upon the stage of the Court proceeding at which the order was passed but it depends, plainly, upon the fact of acquittal itself. ... https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 31. There is authority for the proposition that an order of acquittal particularly one passed on merits, wipes off the conviction and sentence for all purposes, and as effectively as if it had never been passed. An order of acquittal annulling or voiding a conviction operates from nativity. As Kelson puts it, " it is a true annulment, an annulment with retroactive force". So when the conviction of Rohit for Prabhu's murder, was quashed, the High Court-to borrow the felicitous words of Krishan Iyer J. - "killed the conviction not then, but performed the formal obsequies of the order which had died at birth". 7.In a decision report in 2001 (7) SCC 231 (B.R.Kapur Vs. State of Tamil Nadu), also the Apex Court informed as follows: 40. .... If the appeal of the accused succeeds the conviction is wiped out as cleanly as if it had never existed and the sentence is set aside. A successful appeal means that the stigma of the offence is altogether erased. 8. Following the rationale of the decisions of the Apex Court, the present Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the finding of the Lower Court that the petitioner is acquitted on the benefit of doubt is modified to the effect that the petitioner shall stand acquitted honourably. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Thoothukudi 2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Muttaiyapuram Police Station,. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC TO MR. P.PETHU RAJESH, ADVOCATE S.R NO. 10344 Crl.R.C.(MD)No.162 of 2011 28.02.2011 vsm PAM 02.03.2011/5C/3P/IT https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/