1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:08.06.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.RC(MD)No.259 of 2011 Selvakumar :Petitioner/Accused No.3 -Vs- State represented by the Inspector of Police, Pazhavoor Police Station, Pazhavoor, Tirunelveli District. (Crime No.185 of 2006) :Respondent/Complainant Prayer:Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Valliyur in S.C.No.408 of 2008 dated 22.02.2010 acquitting the petitioner for the offences under Section 397 I.P.C. not on merits, but only on benefit of doubt. For Petitioner : M/s. G.R.Edmund For Respondent : Mr.P.Kandasamy,Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) ORDER The revision petitioner was arrayed as A3 in S.C.No.408 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Valliyur, Tirunelveli District and he along with three other accused faced prosecution for the alleged commission of the offence under Section 397 of I.P.C. 2.The case of the prosecution is that on 13.03.2006, at about 10.00 p.m., P.W.1 parked hired vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 72 U 9833 before "Sea View" lodge at Kanyakumari and at that time, all the four accused along with two absconding accused taken the said car for hire to Thirparappu falls. When the car was proceeding near Kavalkinaru Road, at about 7.00 p.m., A1 strangulated P.W.1 with rope, A2 and A3 attacked him on his head with bottles and P.W.1 was thrown away from the car and the car was taken. 3.On the basis of the complaint given by P.W.1, the case was investigated and the charge sheet was filed against all the accused for the commission of the offences under Sections 365 and 397 of I.P.C. The Court of Judicial Magistrate, Valliyur has taken the complaint in P.R.C.No.29 of 2007 and after furnishing copies to the accused, committed the case to the Sessions Court under Section 209(A) of I.P.C. and it was made over to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Valliyur. 4.The trial Court has framed charge under Section 397 of I.P.C. against all the accused and questioned them and they pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.The prosecution in order to sustain their case, examined P.Ws.1 to 16 and marked Exs.P1 to P.15 and also marked TATA Qualis Car bearing Registration No.TN 72 U 9833 as M.O. 6.All the accused were questioned under Section 313 1(b) of Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances against them and they denied it as false. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was let in and no documents were marked. 7.The trial Court on a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, has found that the eye-witness viz., P.W.1 as well as the other witnesses including the witnesses to the mahazar and the contention of the accused and recovery effected out of the admissible portion of the witness turned hostile and except the Investigating Officer, none of the witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. The trial Court citing the said reason, acquitted all the accused awarding of benefit of doubt vide judgment dated 22.02.2010. 8.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/A3 would submit that the revision petitioner had passed B.E. degree (Electronics and Communication Engineering) during November 2009 and Anna University has also issued him, the Provisional Certificate Folio No.G351010 and since he has been acquitted by awarding of benefit of doubt, his employment prospects got diminished and hence, prayed for conversion of acquittal awarding of benefit of doubt into one of honourable acquittal. 9.On the said submission, the Court heard the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) also. 10.A single Bench of this Court in the order dated 07.12.2010 made in Crl.R.C.(MD).No.886 of 2010, has considered the similar issue and also placed reliance upon its earlier order dated 01.04.2008 made in Crl.R.C.No.369 of 2008, it has been held as follows: "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.269 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. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners seek public employment and if the said remark in the Judgment of the Lower Court is not expunged, that would carry a stigma and would be disqualification for them to seek employment. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 The Principles stated in the above said Judgment are squarely applicable to the facts of this case. In view of the above position, in my considered opinion, the observation of the learned III Additional Sessions cum PCR Court, Madurai, that the acquittal is on the basis of benefit of doubt requires to be modified so as to record the acquittal honourable. For all the reasons stated above, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the finding of the Lower Court that the petitioners are acquitted on giving benefit of doubt is modified and the petitioners shall stand acquitted honourably." 11.A perusal of the order of acquittal dated 22.02.2010 made in S.C.No.408 of 2008 would disclose that except the Investigating Officer, all the witnesses including P.W.1 viz., eye witness turned hostile and the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charge under Section 397 I.P.C. against all the accused. 12.In fact the trial Court has also recorded the fact that except the Investigating Officer, all the witnesses turned hostile and hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court ought to have acquitted the revision petitioner/A3 honourably instead of awarding benefit of doubt. 13.In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed and the finding of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Valliyur in the judgment dated 22.02.2010 made in S.C.No.408 of 2008 awarding of benefit of doubt is modified to one of honourable acquittal and the revision petitioner/A3 is acquitted honourably. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.side) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Valliyur. 2. The Inspector of Police, Pazhavoor Police Station, Pazhavoor, Tirunelveli District. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1CC to Mr.G.R.Edmund, Advocate. SR.No.17844. Copy To:The Section Officer, Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Akv Crl.R.C.(MD)No.259 of 2011 RP/21.06.2011/3P/6C. 08.06.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/