1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25.04.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.R.C.(MD)No.237 of 2011 J.Kasinathan ... Petitioner/A.3 Vs. The Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Taluk Police Station, Usilampatti, Madurai District. ... Respondent/Respondent Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in C.C.No.269 of 2009 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti, dated 02.11.2010 and expunge the remark of acquittal passed under benefit of doubt and modify it as Honourary acquittal. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Chellapandian For Respondent : Mr.P.Rajendran, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) ORDER The revision petitioner was arrayed as A.3 in C.C.No.269 of 2009 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti and he along with 7 other accused had been prosecuted for the commission of the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 427 and 506(ii) I.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution is that there is a dispute between the family of P.W.1 and the family of A.1 with regard to the irrigation of lands and as a sequel to the said dispute, all the accused armed with sticks, aruvals and rods went to the house of P.W.1 at 13.00 hours on 06.10.2009 and abused her by using filthy language and also damaged the tractor bearing Registration No.TN-46- B-2073 and caused damage to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and also threatened P.W.1 and her family members with dire consequences. 3. The Sub Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Town Police Station, after registering a case in Cr.No.365 of 2009, investigated the case and filed the final report charging all the accused for the commission of the above said offences and the case was taken on file by the Court of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti. 4. The prosecution in order to sustain their case, examined P.W.1 to P.W.9 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.10. All the accused were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating circumstances made out against them and they denied it as false. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was let in and no documents were marked. 5. The trial Court taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence available on record, found that the injured https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 witness namely P.W.1 and other witnesses namely P.W.2 to P.W.6, had turned hostile and so also, the mahazar witnesses P.W.7 and P.W.8 and consequently, found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and awarding the benefit of doubt, acquitted them vide order dated 02.11.2010. 6. A.3 has preferred this revision petition by submitting that since all the material witnesses had turned hostile, instead of awarding benefit of doubt and acquitting A.3, the trial Court ought to have acquitted him honourably. 7. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/A.3 would submit that the trial Court has committed a grave error in not acquitting the revision petitioner/A.3 honourably and that on account of the same, the petitioner is not in a position to participate in the selection process conducted by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board and hence, prayed for appropriate orders for the acquittal of the revision petitioner/A.3 honourably. 8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that though none of the witnesses had supported the case of the prosecution, the medical evidence coupled with the evidence of the Investigating Officer and the documents, prima facie established the case of the prosecution and since there are discrepancies found between the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has awarded the benefit of doubt and acquitted the revision petitioner/A.3. 9. This Court after taking into consideration the rival submissions and on perusal of the impugned judgment, is of the view that the revision petitioner/A.3 ought to have been acquitted honourably. 10. The trial Court in paragraph 6 of its order, had found that the injured witness namely P.W.1 and the eyewitnesses P.W.2 to P.W.6 did not support the case of the prosecution and the mahazar witnesses P.W.7 and P.W.8 also did not support the case of the prosecution and that all the witnesses except the Investigating Officer had turned hostile. Once the injured witness as well as the eyewitnesses turned hostile and the witness to the scene mahazar had also turned hostile, the trial Court ought to have acquitted the revision petitioner/A.3 honourably. A similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.380 of 2009 and this Court vide order dated 26.08.2009, has taken into consideration the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 01.04.2008 in Crl.R.C.No.369 of 2008, wherein 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 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. 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 as 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. What is meant by the Honourable acquittal and the acquittal awarding the benefit of doubt, came up for consideration in the decision in The D.G.P. v. D.Mahadevan reported in 2009 CIJ 1110 Mad (DB) and it has been held as follows: “8. Before we delve upon the above contentions, we may point out that Criminal Law Jurisprudence contemplates two golden principles namely, (a) presumption of innocence of an accused till the contrary is established; and (b) benefit being given to an accused if there is existence of a reasonable doubt. If an accused is brought before the Court for the commission of alleged offence, the burden is on the prosecution to prove the allegations beyond 'shadow of doubt' or 'reasonable doubt'. What is reasonable doubt or beyond shadow of doubt depends on the facts of each case, where the Court trying the case should apply its mind to arrive at a decision. In the event the Court is of the opinion that the case has not been proved “beyond shadow of doubt” or “beyond reasonable doubt”, it may extend the “benefit of doubt” to the concerned accused and consequently, acquit him. 9. Normally three concepts of evidence are taken into consideration before a judgment is rendered. They are on the (i) principle of evidence; (ii) principle of no evidence and (iii) principle of insufficient evidence. As regard to the first principle, in the event the Court finds https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 that there are enough evidence to prove the guilt, it convicts and imposes the punishment on the accused. Equally on the principle of no evidence, the Court acquits an accused. For our purpose, the third principle would apply, where the Court is of the opinion that the evidence lacks sufficiency to hold that the prosecution has proved the offence “beyond shadow of doubt” or “beyond reasonable doubt”. Here again, the sufficiency of evidence depends on the facts of the case and there may be cases where in the absence of any other evidence, the accused may be found guilty on the sole evidence of a witness which could be believed by the Court. Even in some cases, if one or more witnesses speak about the involvement of an accused, still the Court may discard the evidence on various grounds including on the ground that their evidence cannot be believed etc. In such circumstances also, the Court may extend the benefit of doubt to an accused and consequently acquit him. Such acquittal is otherwise known as “acquittal of all blame”. 10. In the above backdrop, the next question that arises for consideration is as to what is the honourable acquittal. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not define either the acquittal or honourable acquittal and for that matter, the benefit of doubt as well. It is the Court by its judgments and by applying the principles of innocence of the accused and the burden on the prosecution to prove the offence, recognised the principle of giving benefit of doubt to acquit the accused. In the absence of any definition in the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is very difficult to define what is the meaning of the words “honourable acquittal”. Again it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court could reasonably presume that if an accused is acquitted or discharged because of some technicality not having been complied with or on the ground that though there is some evidence against him, he must be acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt, it may not amount to honourable acquittal. On the other hand, if an accused is acquitted after full consideration of evidence because the prosecution witnesses are disbelieved and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges, it would amount to honourable acquittal. In the event the Court while acquitting an accused neither say https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 that the case against him is false nor does it say that the accused has been acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt, then the acquittal may be honourable acquittal or acquittal of all blame. 11. The question still remains as to whether an accused who has been acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt still be considered to have been acquitted honourably. With the limited purpose to find out whether an accused has been acquitted on the ground of “benefit of doubt” or acquitted honourably”, the Court may glance through the judgment. If the acquittal, though speaks of benefit of doubt, still it may be a case of no evidence as well. In such case, it is an acquittal on merits, which may also be called as honourable acquittal. In case, if the benefit of doubt is given on the ground of insufficiency of evidence, even though the Court may say “honourably acquitted” without using the words 'benefit of doubt', still such acquittal could be only on the ground of benefit of doubt.” 12. This Court, on a careful appreciation of the materials available on record and also taking into consideration the rival submissions, is of the view that the order of acquittal awarding benefit of doubt is to be converted into one of honourable acquittal. 13. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the finding of the trial Court in C.C.No.269 of 2009 dated 02.11.2010, by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti that the revision petitioner/A.3 is acquitted awarding benefit of doubt is modified and the revision petitioner/A.3 is acquitted honourably. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti. 2.The Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Town Police Station,Usilampatti, Madurai District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1cc to Mr.S.Chellapandian, Advocate, Sr.No.14935 Crl.R.C.(MD)No.237 of 2011 25.04.2011 rsb/SMA/26.4.2011/5C/5P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/