1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 11.07.2011 Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice S.PALANIVELU Crl.RC.(MD).No.450 of 2011 Rajapandy .. Petitioner/A-4 vs. State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Uthappanayakkanur Police Station in Crime No.100/2002. .. Respondent/Complainant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records related in C.C.No.151 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Usilampatty and expunge the remark found as benefit of doubt in the judgment dated 10.10.2003 as Honourable Acquittal for the petitioner. For Petitioner : M/s.N.S.Ponnaiah For Respondent : Mr.P.Kandasamy Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R This Criminal Revision is preferred to call for the records related to C.C.No.151 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Usilampatty and expunge the remarks found as benefit of doubt in the judgment dated 10.10.2003 as Honourable Acquittal for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has been charge-sheeted under Section 435 of I.P.C. He has alleged to have set fire to the hayrick belonging to one Thanvasi Thevar of V.Kamatchipuram village on 20.09.2002 at about 8.30 p.m. After full trial, the Court below has acquitted the petitioner giving the benefit of doubt. This revision has been filed by the petitioner to acquit him honourably. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Mr.N.S.Ponnaiah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even though the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, it has not acquitted the petitioner by stating that the guilt of the accused has not been established by the prosecution. He further draws attention of this Court to various portions in the judgment of the Court below as regards the evidence which would indicate that the charges against the petitioner stand unproved. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. Even though it is stated by the prosecution that there was a panchayat after the occurrence, they have not been named and that it is also doubtful that who has written the complaint. The learned Judicial Magistrate has also recorded a finding that the witnesses could not have seen as to who has committed the crime, since there was no light in the scene of crime. It is also observed therein that it could not be concluded that the accused alone set fire to the hayrick, in view of the absence of any clinching evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also state that the judgment of the Court below would disclose a fact that a complaint was laid even on the date of occurrence in which P.W.1 to P.W.3 put their signatures but in Ex.P1 their signatures are not found. Hence, it is not clarified by the prosecution, what happened to the complaint already filed with the signatures of P.W.1 to P.W.3. 6. Pointing out the above said circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner claims that an honorary acquittal may be offered to the petitioner. It is his further submission that on three occasions, the petitioner has applied for the post of Police Constable Grade-I, that he is a first class student in B.Sc., (Chemistry) who is having prosperous opportunities to get a good employment in future and if any stigma is attached to his character it would definitely affect his career. In earlier occasions, this Court has taken a consistent view that if the offence is not proved as against the accused and in case if he is to be acquitted on the finding that the charges have not been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, an honourable acquittal may be accorded. 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/- Assistant Registrar(Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Usilampatty. 2.The Inspector of Police, Uthappanayakkanur Police Station, Usilampatti 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai +1cc to Mr.N.S.Ponnaiah, Advocate, Sr.No.22475 srm ssk/29.07.2011 /5c -2p/- Crl.RC.(MD).No.450 of 2011 11.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/