1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 16.08.2011 Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice S.PALANIVELU Crl.RC.(MD).No.689 of 2011 Alagan Rajan @ Saravanan .. Petitioner vs. 1.The State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Taluk Police Station, Madurai District. (Crime No.182 of 2005) 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District. .. Respondents Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in Spl.S.C.No.78 of 2007, on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai, dated 05.04.2010 and expunge the remark of acquittal passed under benefit of doubt and modify it as Honorary acquittal. For Petitioner : M/s.S.Chellapandian 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 Spl.S.C. No.78 of 2007, dated 05.04.2010, on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai, and expunge the remark of acquittal on benefit of doubt and modify it as Honorary acquittal for the petitioner. 2. Heard both sides. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 15.11.2004 at about 07.45 a.m., the accused along with the deceased Periyasamy armed with deadly weapons caused injury to the witnesses and also abused them by caste. Hence, they were charged under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 506(ii), 307 IPC r/w.3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PA) Act. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. Before the Court below, the material witnesses have turned hostile to the prosecution and they were examined in cross by the prosecution. No independent witness has stated anything against the accused. Hence, the Court below acquitted them of all the charges giving them benefit of doubt. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this petitioner has applied for the post of Constable in Railway Protection Force and he has been selected and that only after the orders passed in this revision, appointment orders will be passed and hence, honorary acquittal may be accorded to the petitioner. 6. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 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". 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 petitioner is acquitted on benefit of doubt is modified to the effect that the petitioner shall stand acquitted honourably. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(Writs) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To The III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai. Srm ssk/15.09.2011 /2c -2p/- Crl.RC.(MD).No.689 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/