Rajapandi vs State

Honourable Mr. Justice M. Venugopal

The Petitioner/Sole Accused has projected the instant Criminal Revision (MD) No. 562 of 2012 as against the judgment dated 23.11.2010 in S.T.C. No. 2579 of 2010, passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Virudhunagar. The Learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Virudhunagar, while passing the judgment in S.T.C. No. 2579 of 2010 on 23.11.2010 had interalia observed that P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 had not corroborated the case of the prosecution and further, they were treated as hostile witnesses and further opined that based on the evidence of P.W. 3 (Investigating Officer), the conclusion could not be arrived at that only the Accused Nos. 1 and 3 had committed the offence under Sections 294(b) and 323 of I.P.C. and A2 has committed the offence u/s 294(b) I.P.C. and resultantly, gave them the benefit of doubt, since it had come to a conclusion that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts in respect of A1 to A3 and consequently, acquitted them u/s 255(1) of Cr.P.C.

The Revision Petitioner/Accused No. 3 has assailed the judgment in S.T.C. No. 2579 of 2010 dated 23.11.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Virudhunagar as an aggrieved person before this Court by filing the instant Revision Petition.

The Learned counsel for the Petitioner/A3 submits that the Petitioner/A3 has come out successful in the examination conducted on 22.08.2012 by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board for the post of Grade II Police Constable and since the Trial Court had acquitted the Petitioner/A3 by giving him the benefit of doubt, it amounts to stigma and that he apprehends that the Police Authorities would not select him obviously, mentioning the Rule 14 (b) (iv) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, inasmuch as, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were treated as hostile witness by the prosecution.

The Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contends that "Honourable Acquittal" may be accorded to the petitioner and lend support to her contention relied on the order passed by this Court in Crl.R.C.(MD) No. 1002 of 2008 dated 13.07.2010 between V. Navaneethakrishnan Vs. The State through, the Inspector of Police, Sankarankovil Police Station, Tirunelveli District, wherein, at paras 5 to 7, it is observed as follows:

The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention, would place reliance upon a decision of this Court in Crl.R.C. No. 289 of 2008, Somasundaram vs. The State, dated 28.02.2008, wherein after referring and following a decision of this Court, expunging the findings leading to aquittal of the petitioner, concluded that the petitioner has to be acquitted honourably.

A Division Bench decision followed by the learned Judge reported in The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sriperumbudur Sub-Division I/C Chengalpattu Sub-Division Vs. W.D. Sekaran and The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, is as follows:-

In the light of our discussion, it is clear that it is not axiomatic that in all cases where the criminal proceedings based on the very same set of facts ended in acquittal, the departmental action should not be proceeded with. As rightly observed by the earlier Division Bench of this Court in The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. H.A. Munaff, Anna Nagar West, Chennai and The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, if the acquittal in the criminal proceedings is not a honourable one, it is always open to proceed with the departmental proceedings. The Tribunal has not gone into the above relevant aspects and committed an error in quashing the charge memo at the threshold.

The above said decision in Somasundram case has subsequently been followed by this Court in another case in Crl.RC. 400 of 2008 (Kasinathan v. The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Checkanurani Police Station, Madurai District), dated 27.08.2008.

On a perusal of entire records and the judgment of the trial Court, this Court could not find any material against the petitioner. These circumstances of this case warrant expunging of findings available in the trial Court judgment as to the granting benefit of doubt for acquittal of this petitioner. In consonance with the earlier view of this Court in this regard and as to the circumstances available in this case, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has to be acquitted honourably and acquitted as such. The findings of the Court below as regards acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt stands expunged. The revision deserves to be allowed and it is accordingly allowed.

This Court has also heard the Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), it is not out of place for this Court to make a significant mention that the Trial Court in para 11 of his judgment in S.T.C. No. 2579 of 2010 dated 23.11.2010, had finally opined that the charges levelled against the Accused viz., A1 to A3 have not been proved beyond reasonable doubts and earlier, it had observed in the judgment that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 were not helpful to the prosecution to prove its case and also categorically opined that based on the evidence of P.W. 3 (Investigating Officer), it could not come to the conclusion that the Accused 1 to 3 have committed the offence in question. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court come to an inescapable conclusion that the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court in S.T.C. No. 2579 of 2010 dated 23.11.2010 in respect of the Revision Petitioner/A3 that the prosecution has not proved the charges against the Revision Petitioner u/s 294(b) and 323 of I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubts can be modified to one of "Honourable Acquittal". Consequently, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the finding rendered by the Trial Court in so far as the Revision Petitioner/A3 is concerned, that he is acquitted on benefit of doubt is modified to the effect that he shall stand acquitted Honourably.