Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 640
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
T. Stalin & Others
Versus
State represented by The Inspector of Police Ramanathapuram & Others
CRL.R.C.(MD) Nos. 21, 54, 58 & 59 of 2013
Decided on : 30-01-2013
For the Petitioners:R. Alagumani, Advocate.
For the Respondents: P. Kandasamy, GA, (Criminal Side).
The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between 'Benefit of Doubt' and 'Honorary Acquittal' and their implications on an individual's future prospects.
Headnote:
Benefit of Doubt - Criminal Revision Petition - Sections 147, 143, 353, 188 of I.P.C. - 255(1) of Cr. P.C. - 13, 14(b) of Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the concept of 'Benefit of Doubt' and 'Honorary Acquittal' in the context of Sections 147, 143, 353, 188 of I.P.C. and 255(1) of Cr. P.C. It also referred to Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, which defines the treatment of a person involved in a criminal case. The court analyzed various legal provisions and their interpretations, emphasizing the distinction between acquittal on 'Benefit of Doubt' and 'Honorary Acquittal' and their implications on the individual's future prospects.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner sought to expunge the 'Benefit of Doubt' remark and obtain 'Honorary Acquittal' due to its impact on his employment prospects. The trial Court had acquitted the accused based on 'Benefit of Doubt', affecting the Petitioner's career opportunities.
Finding of the Court:
The court modified the trial Court's finding, granting the Petitioner 'Honorary Acquittal' to alleviate the stigma of 'Benefit of Doubt' and its impact on the Petitioner's future employment prospects.
Issues: The issues revolved around the impact of 'Benefit of Doubt' acquittal on the Petitioner's employment opportunities and the distinction between 'Benefit of Doubt' and 'Honorary Acquittal'.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of legal provisions, including Sections 147, 143, 353, 188 of I.P.C., 255(1) of Cr. P.C., and Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978. It emphasized the need to consider the individual's future prospects and the distinction between 'Benefit of Doubt' and 'Honorary Acquittal'.
Final Decision: The court granted the Petitioner 'Honorary Acquittal' to mitigate the impact of 'Benefit of Doubt' on his future employment prospects.
1. The Petitioner/A5 has projected the present Criminal Revision Petition as against the Judgment dated 28.12.2012 in S.T.C.No.372 of 2011 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ramanathapuram. Further, the Petitioner/A5 has prayed for issuance of an order by this Court to expunge the remark of 'Benefit of Doubt' mentioned in the judgment in S.T.C.No.372 of 2011 dated 28.12.2012 and further to accord 'Honorary Acquittal'.
2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ramanathapuram, while passing the judgment in S.T.C.No.372 of 2011 on 28.12.2012 has inter alia observed that the charges levelled against A1 to A7 for the offence under Sections 147, 143, 353 and 188 of I.P.C. have not been established on the side of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and has granted them the 'Benefit of Doubt' and resultantly, acquitted all of them as per Section 255(1) of Cr. P.C. The Petitioner as an aggrieved person, has projected the present Criminal Revision Petition before this Court seeking to expunge the remark of 'Benefit of Doubt' made by the trial Court in the judgment in S.T.C.No.372 of 2011 dated 28.12.2012 and has also prayed for the relief of 'Honorary Acquittal' being showered on him by this Court.
3. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner/A5 submits that the Petitioner has been selected for the post of Grade II Police Constable in the year 2012 and because of his involvement in the criminal case in S.T.C.No.372 of 2011, he has not been selected by the concerned Police Authorities and in fact, the acquittal of the Petitioner/A5 made by the trial Court in the judgment in S.T.C.No.372 of 2011 dated 28.11.2012 operates as a stigma insofar as the Petitioner is concerned and because of this handicap, he is not in a position to seek further employment opportunities.
4. A perusal of the trial Court judgment in S.T.C.No.372 of 2011 dated 28.12.2012 unerringly point out that the trial Court has come to an irresistible conclusion that in the present case, the prosecution has not established that A1 to A7 have been involved in the occurrence and also that merely on the basis of the Head Constable P.W.6's evidence and because of P.W.7 Inspector's evidence, it cannot be concluded that the charges levellled against the Accused have been proved by the prosecution and consequently all the accused viz., A1 to A7. However, in the present Criminal Revision, this Court is concerned with the Petitioner/A5.
5. At this juncture, this Court, worth recalls the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police and Others Vs. Sandeep Kumar reported in (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 644 at 645 to 647, wherein, in paragraph Nos.9 to 12, it is held as follows:
"9. In this connection, we may refer to the character “Jean Valjean” in Victor Hugo's novel Les Miserables, in which for committing a minor offence of stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry family Jean Valjean was branded as a thief for his whole life. The modern approach should be to reform a person instead of branding him as a criminal all his life.
10. We may also here refer to the case of Welsh students mentioned by Lord Denning in his book Due Process of Law. It appears that some students of Wales were very enthusiastic about the Welsh language and they were upset because the radio programmes were being broadcast in the English language and not in Welsh. They came up to London and invaded the High Court. They were found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to prison for three months by the High Court Judge. They filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals. Allowing the appeal, Lord Denning observed:
“I come now to Mr. Watkin Powell's third point. He says that the sentences were excessive. I do not think they were excessive, at the time they were given and in the circumstances then existing. Here was a deliberate interference with the course of justice in a case which was no concern of theirs. It was necessary for the Judge to show—and to show to all student
