1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 19.07.2011 Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice S.PALANIVELU Crl.RC.(MD).No.554 of 2011 1.Suresh 2.Mahesh @ Maheswaran 3.Veeran 4.Valli .. Petitioner/A1 to 4 vs. State through Sub Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai Police Station, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. (Crime No.472/2009) .. Respondent/Complainant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in S.T.C. No.1592 of 2009 dated 14.12.2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Tirunelveli and to remark the acquittal of the petitioners as honourary acquittal in S.T.C. No.1592 of 2009 dated 14.12.2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Tirunelveli by allowing this Revision Petition. For Petitioners : M/s.V.Kannan For Respondent : Mr.P.Kandasamy Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER This Criminal Revision is preferred to call for the records related to S.T.C. No.1592 of 2009 dated 14.12.2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Tirunelveli and to remark the acquittal of the petitioners as honourary acquittal. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 11.03.2009 at about 23.00 hours in the water tank at M.K.P. Nager, Palayamkottai, the accused are alleged to have hurled filthy language at the defacto complainant and also assaulted him by means of a stone and hence, the first accused was charged under Sections 294(b), 323 and 336 of IPC and the accused 2 to 4 were charged under Section 294(b) and 323 of IPC. The first and second petitioners are the sons of the third and fourth petitioners. The fourth petitioner and the defacto complainant are serving as health workers in Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation. Before the trial Court, the defacto complainant and the alleged eye witnesses P.Ws.2 and 3 turned hostile to the prosecution and they were examined in cross by the prosecution. The remaining witnesses were police personnel who alone supported the case of the prosecution. Since no material was available to record conviction against the accused, the learned Judicial Magistrate has given benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted them of all the charges. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 4. Mr.V.Kannan, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the second petitioner has applied for the post of Grade-II Police Constable and that even though he was acquitted from the criminal case, it may attach as a stigma for his future career and hence, an honourable acquittal may be accorded to him. He would further submit that the first petitioner is also an unemployed, who is going to apply for some post and hence, the same benefit may also be extended to him. 5. The defacto complainant herself turned hostile to the prosecution. Practically, there is no evidence as against the accused to establish the charges. In these circumstances, the finding of the court below that the charges were proved beyond reasonable doubt is modified to one as the prosecution has failed to establish the charges. 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 in respect of first and second petitioners and the finding of the lower Court that the petitioner is acquitted on benefit of doubt is modified to the effect that the first and second petitioner shall stand acquitted honourably. The revision as against the third and fourth petitioners is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AE) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli. 2.Do-Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli. 3.The Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai Police Station, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Crl.RC.(MD).No.554 of 2011 19.07.2011 srm PA/08.08.2011/3P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/