The main legal point established in the judgment is the concept of 'Honourable Acquittal' and its significance in avoiding stigma on future prospects and career opportunities.

1. The Petitioners/A1 and A2 have preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the Judgment dated 06.11.2012 made in S.T.C.No.1313 of 2012 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, in acquitting them based on 'Benefit of Doubt'. Further, they have prayed for an issuance of an order by this Court for their 'Honorary Acquittal'.

2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, while passing the impugned Judgment in S.T.C.No.1313 of 2012 on 06.11.2012 has inter alia observed that P.W.1/victim has turned hostile and further, only based on the evidence of P.W.2, it cannot be accepted that the charges levelled against the Accused have been established beyond reasonable doubt on the side of the prosecution and consequently, acquitted the Accused Nos.1 and 2 in respect of the offence under Sections 294(b) and 323 of I.P.C., giving them 'Benefit of Doubt'.

3. At this stage, the Learned counsel for the Petitioners has filed a memo stating that the Revision Petition may be dismissed as not pressed insofar as the first Petitioner/A1 is concerned. The memo is recorded and the Criminal Revision Petition in respect of the first Petitioner/A1 is dismissed as not pressed.

4. In regard to the second Petitioner/A2, the Learned counsel for the Second Petitioner submits that the second Petitioner has been acquitted by the trial Court, by means of judgment dated 06.11.2012 in S.T.C.No.1313 of 2012 based on 'Benefit of Doubt', being granted in her favour and in fact, the second Petitioner/A2 has been selected for the post of Grade II Women Police Constable in Tamil Nadu Police Department and also that she appeared in the competent examination and has undergone the physical test and finally, she got selected for the post of Grade II Woman Police Constable. Since, she has not got an order of 'Honourable Acquittal', she has filed the present Revision Petition because of the fact that her Acquittal on 'Benefit of Doubt' operates as a stigma to her in her future prospects/career.

5. The Learned counsel for the second Petitioner/A2 urges before this Court that the trial Court has clearly stated in its judgment dated 06.11.2012 made in S.T.C.No.1313 of 2012 that P.W.1/victim has turned hostile and further merely based on P.W.2 (Grade II Constable)'s evidence, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case against the second Petitioner/A2 and the first Petitioner/A1 (against whom the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed as not pressed) and ultimately, acquitted both the Accused, holding that the charges levelled against them have not been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.

6. In this connection, this Court aptly points out 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, whereby and whereunder, 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,