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.277 of 2011 M.Cellapandi : Revision Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs. The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruppuvanam Police Station, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai District. : Respondent/Complainant Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C. to admit the revision and set aside the order dated 12.01.2009 made in C.C.No.158 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai by expunging the remarks of the benefit of doubt and orders as that of an honourable acquittal. For Petitioner : M/s. J.Anandkumar For Respondent : Mr.P.Rajendran, Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) O R D E R The revision petitioner is accused No.1 in C.C.No.158 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District and he along with his mother had charge sheeted for the alleged commission of the offences under Sections 336 and 427 of I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.07.2002 at about 9.00 p.m., P.Ws.1,2 and 3 were standing in front of their house and at that time, A1 asked P.W.1 with regard to the dispute with his mother (A2) and in that process, took a stone and throw it upon P.W.1 and he sustained injury on his left shoulder and also on the forehead. A2 also throw the stone upon P.W.2 and she sustained injury on the right knee and also damaged the tiles of the house. The respondent after the investigation filed a final report and the same was taken cognizance by the said Court in C.C.No.158 of 2003 and the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. The prosecution in order to sustain their case, examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. 4. 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 documents were marked. 5. The trial Court found that all the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and therefore, awarded benefit of doubt and acquitted them vide order dated 12.01.2009. Since the Court instead of honourably acquitting them, has awarded benefit of doubt and acquitted them, the first accused has preferred the present revision petition contended that he has been called for interview for selection to the post of Grade-II Police Constable by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board and the order granting benefit of doubt will be put against him and also he may not be selected. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would draw the attention of this Court to the judgment in C.C.No.158 of 2003 and submit that since all the prosecution witnesses turned hostile, the lower Court should have honourably acquitted the accused instead of acquitting them by awarding benefit of doubt. 7. In support of his submission, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relied upon the order dated 07.12.2010 made in Crl.R.C.No.886 of 2010, wherein same issue came up for consideration and the acquittal awarding benefit of doubt was modified to one of honourable acquittal. 8. On the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, the Court heard the submission of Mr.P.Rajendran, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) also. 9. A perusal of the order dated 12.01.2009 made in C.C.No.158 of 2003 on the file of the Court of Additional District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai would disclose that the eye- witnesses viz., P.Ws.1 and 2 turned hostile and also the witnesses to the recovery and seizure. Except the Investigating Officer, all the prosecution witnesses turned hostile. 10. Since the witnesses turned hostile, the prosecution has failed to prove its case and therefore, the lower Court should have honourably acquitted the accused instead of awarding benefit of doubt and acquitting him. 11. In the considered opinion of this Court, the facts and circumstances of the case would disclose that the revision petitioner/accused should have been 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, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 "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. In the result, the order of acquittal awarding benefit of doubt in the order dated 12.01.2009 made in C.C.No.158 of 2003 is modified to one of honourable acquittal. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Additional District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District. 2. The Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruppuvanam Police Station, Thiruppuvanam Taluk, Sivagangai 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. Crl.R.C.(MD)No.277 of 2011 31.03.2011 akv NSV/7.4.2011/3P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/