1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 18.08.2011 Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice S.PALANIVELU Crl.RC.(MD).No.683 of 2011 1.Amirdaraj 2.Selvi .. Petitioners/Accused vs. State by Inspector of Police, Ottapidaram Police Station, Thoothukudi District, (Crime No.156 of 2004) .. Respondent/Complainant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to pass an order of Honourable Acquittal in C.C.No.2 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam. For Petitioner : M/s.Samuel Gunasingh For Respondent : Mr.P.Kandasamy Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ORDER This Criminal Revision is preferred against the order of acquittal in the judgment dated 24.05.2006 made in C.C.No.2 of 2005, on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Villathikulam, and pass an order of Honourable Acquittal. 2. Heard both sides. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 23.07.2004, at about 08.00 a.m., in front of the house of P.W.1 by name Umamalini, due to family dispute, the accused 1 to 5 appeared in the scene of occurrence and abused her with obscene language and also criminally intimidated her and hence, they were charged under Sections 147, 294(b), 354 and 506(i) IPC. 4. Before the trial Court, P.W.1, the complainant as well as the alleged eye witnesses 2 and 3 had turned hostile to the prosecution and were not cross examined by the Assistant Public Prosecutor. After considering the materials on record, the Court below has acquitted of the accused giving them benefit of doubt. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the second petitioner is applying for the post of Police Constable and the first petitioner is working in TASMAC and hence, honorary acquittal may be accorded to the petitioners. 6. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the order of this Court dated 01.04.2008 in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 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 petitioners are acquitted on benefit of doubt is modified to the effect that the petitioners shall stand acquitted honourably. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam. 2.The Inspector of Police, Ottapidaram Police Station, Thoothukudi District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai. Crl.RC.(MD).No.683 of 2011 srm PA/07.09.2011/2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/