Sivanesan v. The State Represented By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 26.11.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH Crl.O.P. No.27315 of 2018 Sivanesan .. Petitioner vs.

The State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ponnai Police Station, Vellore District.

.. Respondent Crime No.11 of 2011 PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to declare that the acquittal of the petitioner in C.C.No.15 of 2011 rendered by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Walaja, Vellore District on 27.09.2012 as "Hon'ble acquittal". For Petitioner : Mr.Karl Marx K.C.

For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Addl.Public Prosecutor.

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking to declare the acquittal of the petitioner in C.C.No.15 of 2011, rendered by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Walaja, Vellore District on 27.09.2012 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 Section 294(b), 323, and 324 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 PW1 and PW7 were examined on the side of the prosecution. PW1 to PW6 have stated before the Court that they have compromised the matter with the accused persons and they have also stated that the accused persons can be discharged from the case. The trial Court has given a categorical finding that the evidence produced by the prosecution, has not supported the case of the prosecution and the prosecution has not made out 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 honorably, 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 seven witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution and out of the same, six 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-7. 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.15 of 2011, on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Walaja, Vellore District dated 27.09.2012, is hereby held to be "Hon'ble acquittal". 9.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- Deputy Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rpl To 1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Walaja, Vellore District

2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ponnai Police Station, Vellore District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Madras.

+1cc to Mr.Karlmarx.K.C., Advocate, S.R.No.8591 Crl.O.P. No.27315 of 2018 rrs 03/12/2018