1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 19.09.2011 Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice S.PALANIVELU Crl.RC.(MD).No.786 of 2011 1.C.Ganesan 2.Senthilvel .. Petitioners/A1&2 Vs. State through :: The Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruthangal Police Station.(Crime No.286/2007) ..Respondent/Complainant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records of the Judgment dated 29.06.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi in C.C.No.297 of 2007 and expunge the remarks of acquittal on benefit of doubt as Honorary acquittal. For Petitioner : M/s.C.Arul VAdivel @ Sekar For Respondent : Mr.P.Kandasamy,Government Advocate (Crl. side) O R D E R This Criminal Revision is preferred to call for the records related to C.C. No.297 of 2007 dated 29.06.2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi and expunge the remark of acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt as that of Honourable acquittal. 2. Both the petitioners are accused in C.C.No.297 of 2007, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi. The case was registered under Sections 341 and 324 IPC. Both of them are alleged to have waylaid the de-facto complainant and alleged to have assaulted him by means of aruval on various parts of his body. The prosecution witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution and hence, the Court below has acquitted both the accused by extending benefit of doubt to them. The judgment was pronounced on 29.06.2009. Subsequently, the first accused applied for the post of Police Constable and it was stated by the authorities that since he was acquitted by the Court granting benefit of doubt, he cannot be considered for the selection. 3. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent. 4. Mr.C.Arulvadivel @ Sekar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that as far as the first petitioner is concerned, the judgment even though ended in acquittal, will be as stigma in his future career and hence, he may be accorded honorary acquittal. It is his further submission that the second petitioner is also intending to apply for certain posts and hence, the same relief may also be extended to him. 5. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 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". 6. He has also garnered support from a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2011) 4 SCC 644, (Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar), wherein in paragraphs 8 and 9 it has been held as follows: "8.We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that the cancellation of his candidature was illegal, but we wish to give our own opinion in the matter. When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often be condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives. 9.In this connection, we may refer to the character "Jean Valjean" in Victor Hugo's novel Les Miserables, in which for committing a minor offence of stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry family Jean Valjean was branded as a thief for his whole life. The modern approach should be to reform a person instead of branding him as a criminal all his life." 7. 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 petitioners are acquitted on benefit of doubt is modified to the effect that the petitioners shall stand acquitted honourably. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( A.S ) /TRUE COPY/ srm SUB ASST REGISTRAR TO:1. The Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi. 2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruthangal Police Station. 3.The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. DM::2011:SEPTEMBER:29:: Crl.RC.(MD).No.786 of 2011 19.09.2011 2p:4c:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/