Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Chinnapparaj vs The State Represented By on 26 November, 2018

Author: N. Anand Venkatesh

Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh

                                                             1

                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED : 26.11.2018

                                                         CORAM

                                    THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

                                               Crl.O.P. No.27312 of 2018

                      Chinnapparaj                                                      .. Petitioner

                                                       vs.

                      The State represented by
                      The Sub-Inspector of Police,
                      Mahalingapuram Police Station,
                      Pollachi, Coimbatore District.
                      (Crime No.75 of 2017)                                           .. Respondent

                      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.4239 of 2017 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,
                      Pollachi, Coimbatore District on 14.11.2017 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.4239 of 2017 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pollachi, Coimbatore District on 14.11.2017 as "Hon'ble acquittal".

http://www.judis.nic.in 2

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) and 323 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 3 who were examined on the side of the prosecution 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-4. The Trial Court has given a categorical finding that the evidence of PW 1 to 3 has 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-4. 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 http://www.judis.nic.in 3 to have been acquitted honorably, and it cannot 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 four witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution and out of the same, three 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-4. 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. http://www.judis.nic.in 4 N. ANAND VENKATESH,. J.

rpl

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.4239 of 2017, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pollachi, Coimbatore District dated 14.11.2017, is hereby held to be "Hon'ble acquittal".

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





                                                                                       26.11.2018

                      Note: Issue order copy on 03.12.2018
                      Index        : Yes/No
                      Internet     : Yes/No
                      rpl

                      To
                      1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II,
                        Pollachi,
                        Coimbatore District.

                      2.The Sub-Inspector of Police,
                        Mahalingapuram Police Station,
                        Pollachi, Coimbatore District.

                      3.The Public Prosecutor,
                        High Court of Madras.                        Crl.O.P. No.27312 of 2018



http://www.judis.nic.in