Madras High Court

M.Kumaran vs The Inspector Of Police on 5 March, 2021

                                                                          Crl.R.C.No.115 of 2021

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 05.03.2021

                                                     CORAM:

                               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

                                               Crl.R.C.No.115 of 2021


                 M.Kumaran                                                .Petitioner

                                                   -Vs-

                 The Inspector of Police
                 Mylam Police Station
                 Villupuram District                                     ..Respondent

                 Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed praying to set aside that portion of the

                 order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Tindivanam in C.C.No.100

                 of 2018 dated 13.12.2018 to the effect that the acquittal of the petitioner is

                 simple acquittal and not because the charges have not been proved beyond

                 reasonable doubt.



                           For Petitioner :   M/s.Sudharsana Sunder

                           For Respondent : Mr.K.Madhan,
                                            Government Advocate (Crl.Side)




                1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                             Crl.R.C.No.115 of 2021

                                                      ORDER

The respondent police registered the case in Crime No.293/2018 against

the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and

506(ii) IPC . After the investigation, the respondent laid the charge sheet

before the Judicial Magistrate I, Tindivanam. The Judicial Magistrate taken

the case in C.C.No.100 of 2018. After the trial, the learned Magistrate found

not guilt of the offences against the petitioner and acquitted him from all the

offences. It is stated in paragraph No.5 of the judgment that the prosecution

has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Though it is acquittal,

aggrieved with the observation made by the Magistrate that the prosecution

has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the petitioner should

have acquitted as the prosecution has not proved its case. Therefore, the

petitioner filed the present Revision before this Court.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the

petitioner was shown as A-2 in the above said case and he was acquitted for

the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC, the fact

is that the prosecution has not established the commission of offence by the

petitioner, but the Magistrate has pointed out that the prosecution has not

proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, which observation warrants

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.No.115 of 2021

interference by this court. FIR has been registered against the petitioner based

on the false complaint given by the complainant, because the petitioner was

selected in the Constable Recruitment and with jealousy, in order to spoil

petitioner’s future and with intention that the petitioner should not enter into

the Uniform Service, the complainant foisted a case against the petitioner and

no materials put forth to prove that the petitioner has committed the alleged

offences. The learned Magistrate even though acquitted the petitioner, the

Magistrate is totally unjustified in acquittal, as the acquittal is on the basis of

benefit of doubt. The learned Magistrate ought to have granted clean acquittal.

The learned Magistrate failed to note that all the exhibits are dated 28.11.2018

whereas the incident took place on 13.06.2013 and this court has ample

powers to expunge the remarks of the learned Magistrate after it has become

final and also he placed reliance on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme

court in 2013(3) SC 01, 2014 (5) SCC 417 and 2015(6) SCC 716.

3. Mr.Madhan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would

submit that since the other eyewitnesses have not supported the case of the

prosecution and turned hostile, the Magistrate found that acquittal is on the

ground that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.No.115 of 2021

doubt. There is no reason to set aside the order of the Magistrate and there is

no merit in the Revision.

4. Heard and perused the records.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner was shown as A-2 in C.C.No.100 of 2018

and after trial, he was acquitted from the case by extending the benefit of

doubt. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had

written examination for common recruitment for the post of Grade II Police

[Men, Women & Transgender] for the year 2017-2018 on 11.03.2018. The

result was declared on 14.04.2018 and the petitioner got selected in the

written examination and he was waiting for the fitness test and other viva-

voce interview. During the selection process, the case was registered against

the petitioner and others on 13.06.2018 and the FIR was registered on

13.06.2018 and the certificate verification after selection was done on

19.09.2018. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the

petitioner was hailing from poor family and remote village, he got selection in

the written examination and waiting for the other process, the jealous persons

preferred a false case against the petitioner and the respondent police, without

verifying the same and without taking note of the future of the petitioner,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.No.115 of 2021

registered the case against the petitioner on 13.06.2018 in Crime No.293 of

2018 and thereafter, laid the charge sheet.

6. Though the trial court found the petitioner not guilt of the offences

and acquitted the petitioner, observation is made by the Magistrate that by

extending the benefit of doubt to the petitioner, he had been acquitted and that

it is on the ground of benefit of doubt.

7. On a perusal of the materials and also the evidence, it is seen that the

defacto complainant himself has not stated anything regarding preferring of

the complaint. Therefore, when the complainant himself has not proved the

allegations in the complaint and the eye witnesses not spoken about the

incident, it is proved that the there is no case against the petitioner. In case, if

the complainant established his complaint and other witnesses have not

corroborated the case, the court can extend the benefit of doubt. Whereas, in

this case, P.W.1/complainant himself has deposed that he is not able to

remember the date of the occurrence and also what happened to the persons

who are present at the time of occurrence and he did not know about the

averments/allegations made in the complaint. But the complainant has only

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.No.115 of 2021

admitted his signature. Even P.W.2 and P.W.3 also stated the same thing.

Therefore, giving of the complaint itself was not substantiated. Since the

averment/allegations made in the complaint itself was not substantiated by the

prosecution, the prosecution failed to prove the case. Therefore, the petitioner

has been acquitted.

8. Since the acquittal was not recorded as clear acquittal but on a

finding that there is doubt in the establishment of the prosecution case, the

Revision petitioner is aggrieved on the said finding. The learned counsel in

this connection, referred to the earlier decision of this court dated 23.12.2014

in Crl.R.C.No.684 of 2014 [E.Kalivarathan Vs. The State, rep. by the Sub-

Inspector of Police, Pudupet Police Station Cuddalore District] wherein,

under similar circumstances, this court, allowed the Criminal Revision

Petition holding that the finding recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate

No.II, Panruti, in his order dated 31.12.2012 made in C.C.No.12 of 2010 to

the effect that the acquittal is because charges have not been proved beyond

reasonable doubt is set aside and instead, it is ordered that the acquittal shall

be a simple order of acquittal. In the said decision of this court, in Paragraph

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.No.115 of 2021

Nos. 49 to 56, it is held as follows:-

“49. Now comes the question as to whether the criminal court can use the expression “honourable acquittal” while acquitting an accused. This question is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Management of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi v. Bhopal Singh Panchal, (1994) 1 SCC 541 wherein, the Supreme Court has held as follows:-

“The expressions "honourable acquittal" "acquitted of blame" "fully exonerated" are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression "honourably acquitted". When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted."

50. Thus, the expression “honourable acquittal” is relevant to service law jurisprudence or other jurisprudence and not for criminal law jurisprudence. Therefore, the criminal court while acquitting the accused, undoubtedly, cannot employ the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.No.115 of 2021

term "that the accused is/are honourably acquitted". But at the same time, in all cases where there is no evidence at all against the accused as I have already concluded, the criminal court should simply say "acquitted". The criminal court may say that there is no evidence against the accused. But, the criminal court in such kind of cases, where there is no evidence at all against the accused, shall not employ the expressions "not proved beyond reasonable doubt" or "accused is acquitted by giving benefit of doubt".

51. The Division Bench has held under Question No.2 that a revision would not lie to convert an order of acquittal as an order of honourable acquittal as the term “honourable acquittal”is unknown to criminal law. Regarding this proposition also there can be no second opinion, for the criminal court, while acquitting an accused, cannot use the expression #honourable acquittal#.

52. Now, turning to the facts of the present case, a perusal of the judgment of the trial court would go to show that no one has spoken to anything incriminating him. Therefore, the trial court should have acquitted him by recording an order of acquittal without adding any adjectives such as "not proved beyond reasonable doubt" or "by giving the benefit of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.No.115 of 2021

doubt". However, a perusal of the judgment of the trial court would go to show that the trial court has acquitted the accused on the ground that the charges have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. This finding, in my considered opinion, needs to be set aside by this court. The trial court should have acquitted the accused simpliciter without adding any qualification to the word "acquittal". Of course, the term "honourable acquittal" is foreign to the criminal law jurisprudence and so this court cannot covert the order of acquittal into one of honourable acquittal. Therefore, this court only converts the order of acquittal on benefit of doubt into one of acquittal simpliciter. In the context of service law jurisprudence, if the petitioner seeks employment, it is for the appointing authority to consider the judgment of the trial court in its entirety and to find whether the acquittal is honourable or not for the purpose of employment in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Management of Reserve Bank of India v. Bhopal Singh Panchal [1994 (1) SCC 541].

53. At this juncture, I wish to mention that in W.P.No.9954 of 2010 dated 02.09.2014 [Lakshmanaperumal v. State rep. by The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.No.115 of 2021

Chennai - 600 002 and another], I found that an youth, who was punished for an offence under Section 75 of the Madras City Police Act was denied employment as a police constable. Having taken note of the plight of him and following the recommendation made by the Larger Bench of this court in J.Alex Ponseelan v. State 2014 (2) CTC 337, I suggested to the Government to consider to amend Rule 14 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules. But, the Division Bench in M.Krishnan's case [cited supra] has observed that the State as well as the Director General of Police should discard all suggestions for an amendment to the Rules in the larger interest of the society. I wish to further mention here that the Division Bench, I apprehend, was not apprised of the recommendation made by the Larger Bench in J.Alex Ponseelan's case cited supra, wherein, in paragraph 19, the Larger Bench has made the following recommendation:-

"19. In so far as the present case is concerned, the explanation to Rule 14(b)(iv) indicates that it is not exhaustive but it specifies certain instances, which would explain the term "involvement in a criminal case". In any event, assuming without admitting that there is some confusion in the understanding of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.No.115 of 2021

language by which the Explanation has been stated, that issue can however be appropriately addressed by the Government by suitably amending the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rule, on the lines of the Delhi Police Rules and its Standing Order No.398/2010, which is reproduced in Paragraph 20 of the judgment in Mehar Singh's case (Supra). Such a recommendation is made taking cue from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another - AIR 1996 SC 3300."

[Emphasis supplied]

Therefore, the recommendations made by the larger Bench in J.Alex Ponseelan's case cited supra holds good.

54. Before parting with this order, I wish to mention that the incidence of false criminal cases is on the increase. The National Crime Records Bureau, in its Report on Crime in India for the year 2000, has stated that 7.55% of the total cases registered in the Country are false cases. The latest report on Crime in India for the year 2012 has been released by National Crime Record Bureau, which shows roughly 48% of complaints were frivolous as the accused were either acquitted by the court or the complaints were found to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.No.115 of 2021

be false at the investigation stage itself. For example, so far as the crimes against the women are concerned, the statistics shows that in rapes, dowry deaths, harassment to married women, and outraging of modesty of women, the percentage of false cases are 7.4%, 6.6%, 9.6% and 5.8% respectively.

55. The above statistics, if compared to the statistics of the year 2000, would go to show that the registration of false cases is phenomenally on the increase. Those who are implicated in these false cases suffer in terms of humiliation, loss of money, loss of working hours, loss of mental peace and at last, loss of employment as well. Most of the accused implicated in these false cases hail from poor strata of the society for whom some hearts bleed.

56. In the result, the criminal revision petition is allowed, the finding recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Panruti in his order dated 31.12.2012 made in C.C.No.12 of 2010 to the effect that the acquittal is because charges have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt is set aside and instead, it is ordered that the acquittal shall be a simple order of acquittal.”

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.No.115 of 2021

following the earlier decision rendered by this court, this Criminal Revision

Case is allowed. The finding recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate

No.II, Tindivanam, in his order dated 13.12.2018 made in C.C.No.100 of

2018 to the effect that the acquittal is because charges have not been

proved beyond reasonable doubt and on the basis of benefit of doubt is set

aside and instead, it is ordered that the acquittal shall be a simple order of

acquittal.

05.03.2021

Index:Yes/No

nvsri