@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
M. Venugopal, J.@mdashThe Petitioners/Accused Nos. 46 and 47 have preferred the present Criminal Revision Petition as against the Judgment dated 20.10.2011 in S.C. No. 141 of 2011 passed by the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge (Camp), Usilampatti in expunging the remark of Acquittal passed on ''Benefit of Doubt'' and to modify the same to one of ''Honorary Acquittal''. According to the Learned counsel for the Petitioners/A46 and A47 that it is the case of the prosecution that due to temple dispute, the Petitioners along with other Accused waylaid the funeral procession of one Alyyav and attacked the participants of the procession with deadly weapon and thereby caused injury to them. The Petitioners were charged under Sections 148, 148 read with 109 I.P.C., 324, 323, 326, 307 and 307 read with 34 I.P.C.
2. The case was taken on file in P.R.C. No. 15 of 2010 by the Learned Committal Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatti and the case was committed to the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge at Madurai. Later, since the offences were triable by the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, the matter was referred to the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge (Camp) Usilampatti and in the main case, P.Ws. 1 to 6 were examined and Exhibits P-1 to 10 were marked. After contest, all the 51 Accused were acquitted of the charges levelled against them on the ground that the prosecution had not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the Petitioners, by giving them ''Benefit of Doubt''.
3. The main contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioners is that the Petitioners were called for interview for Recruitment of Grade II Police Constable on 3.11.2012, requiring them to appear for Thumb and Certificate verification on 8.11.2012. Further, it is the case of the Petitioners that they are desires of seeking employment prospects and as such, the ''Benefit of Doubt Acquittal'' conferred on them still operate as a stigma/stumbling block for their future employment career and hence they pray for ''Honorary Acquittal''.
4. The Learned counsel for the Petitioners/A46 and 47 brings it to the notice of this Court that in Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 369 of 2008 dated 1.4.2008, the Learned single Judge, following the earlier judgment of this Court, has observed as under:
The learned counsel would rely on the Judgment of this Court in Somasundaran v. The State through the Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, Madurai Crl. R.C. No. 269 of 2008, dated 28.2.2008, 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.
The Principles stated in the above said Judgment are squarely applicable tot he 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 finding of the Lower Court that the petitioners are acquitted on giving benefit of doubt is modified and the petitioners shall stand acquitted honourably.
5. In the decision in D.G.P. v. D. Mahadevan 2009 CIJ 1110 Mad (DB), it is 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 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 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, 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.
6. Also, the Learned counsel for the Petitioners cites the order passed by this Court in Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 237 of 2011 dated 25.4.2011, wherein, in similar circumstances, the Criminal Revision Petition has been allowed and the finding of the Trial Court in C.C. No. 269 of 2009 dated 2.11.2010 passed by the Learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Usilampatti that the Revision Petitioner/A3 therein was acquitted awarding Benefit of Doubt was modified into that of Honourable Acquittal.
7. A cursory perusal of the judgment in S.C. No. 141 of 2011 dated 20.10.2011 passed by the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge (Camp), Usilampatti shows that the Petitioners/A46 and 47 along with other Accused were given the ''Benefit of Doubt'' and consequently, found them not guilty. Inasmuch as the Petitioner/A46 and 47, they seek employment prospects in the Police Department as Grade II Police Constable, this Court by taking note of the facts and circumstances of the present case in an attendant fashion, this Court comes to an inescapable conclusion that the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court in S.C. No. 141 of 2011 dated 20.10.2011 in respect of the Revision Petitioners/A46 and A47b that the prosecution has not proved the charges levelled against them beyond all reasonable doubts can be modified to one of ''Honourable Acquittal''. Viewed in that perspective, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the finding rendered by the Trial Court insofar as the Revision Petitioners/A46 and 47 is concerned, that they are acquitted on ''Benefit of Doubt'' is modified to the effect that they shall stand acquitted Honourably.
