M.Sudhan v. The State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.07.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH Crl.O.P. No.18192 of 2019 M.Sudhan .. Petitioner vs.

The State Represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Nellikuppam Police Station, Cuddalore District Crime No.647 of 2016.

.. Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to declare the acquittal of the petitioner by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Cuddalore in C.C.No.33 of 2017 dated 28.09.2017, held to be Hon'ble acquittal. For Petitioner : M/s.Rayeesa Fathima For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Addl.Public Prosecutor.

ORER This petition has been filed seeking to declare the acquittal of the petitioner in C.C.No.33 of 2017, rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Cuddalore, on 28.09.2017 as "Hon'ble acquittal".

2.It is seen from the records that a case was registered against the petitioner by the respondent Police for an alleged offence under Sections 294(b), 325 and 506(ii) of IPC. After completion of the investigation, the respondent Police laid a Final Report before the concerned Court and charges were framed against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner underwent trial for the above said offence.

3.It is seen from the judgment of the Trial Court that PW 1 to PW 8 who were examined on the side of the prosecution and out of them, PW1 to PW6 have turned hostile and the only evidence that was available before the Court was the evidence of the Investigating Officer who was examined as PW-8 and PW7Doctor. The Trial Court has given a categorical finding that the evidence of PW1 to PW6 have not supported the case of the prosecution and the prosecution has not made out their case beyond reasonable doubt only based on the evidence given by PW-

8. Therefore, the Trial Court has come to a categorical conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the petitioner.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after such a finding has been rendered in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner ought to have been acquitted honourably, and it cannot be taken as an acquittal by giving the benefit of doubt. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the order passed by this Court in a similar case in Crl.O.P.No.8860 of 2018 dated 22.03.2018. This Court under similar circumstances had held that the judgment of acquittal was passed after appreciation of the evidence on record, and therefore, this Court had came to a conclusion that acquittal can only be treated as Hon'ble acquittal.

5.This Court has carefully considered the materials available on record and also the submission made by the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

6.This Court is of the considered view that there were totally three witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution and out of the same, two witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. The only other evidence that was available was that of the Investigating Officer who was examined as PW-8. The Trial Court on examination of the evidence had given a categorical finding that the prosecution has not made out the case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubts. 7.This Court is also relying upon the earlier order passed by this Court under similar circumstances.

8.In view of the above, the acquittal of the petitioner in C.C.No.33 of 2017, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Cuddalore dated 28.09.2017, is hereby held to be "Hon'ble acquittal".

9.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- Deputy Registrar(J) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

kal To 1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Nellikuppam Police Station, Cuddalore District 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Madras.

3.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore.

4.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Cuddalore.

+1cc to M/s.Rayeesa Fathima, Advocate sr.52365 Crl.O.P. No.18192 of 2019 pm(co) nr 01/08/2019