Madras High Court
M.Kumaran vs The Inspector Of Police on 5 March, 2021
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
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 2/14 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 3/14 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, 4/14 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 5/14 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 6/14 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 7/14 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 8/14 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, 9/14 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 10/14 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 11/14 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 12/14 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 To
1.The Judicial Magistrate-II, Tindivanam
2. The Inspector of Police Mylam Police Station, Villupuram District
3.The Public Prosecutor Office, High Court, Madras
4.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras 13/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.No.115 of 2021 P.VELMURUGAN, J.
nvsri Crl.R.C.No.115 of 2021 05.03.2021 14/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/