The judgment emphasizes the importance of properly examining evidence, establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the principle of benefit of doubt in favor of the accused.

The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 05.8.2008 passed in S.C.No.333 of 2001.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

During May 1999, there was a theft of Television set in the fourth accused house, for which there was a Panchayat. In the Panchayat P.W.4 and P.W.5 were directed to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for alleged theft of the TV Set. But the same was not paid. Therefore, complaint was lodged. As no action was taken, legal notice was issued. While so, on 13.4.2000, at about 9.00 p.m. when P.Ws.1 to 3 were watching a film in TV., the door of the house was rudely knocked. When P.W.1 and P.W.2, mother of P.W.1, went in front of the door, all the five accused started beating P.W.1 and threatened him with dire consequences. In that incident, P.W.1 sustained serious injuries and was admitted in the hospital. Thereafter,a complaint was registered and after investigation, police filed a final report against the accused for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 307 read with 149 IPC and the same was taken cognizance in S.C.No.333 of 2001 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Madurantagam. After due trial, the trial Court, acquitted all the accused by judgment dated 05.2.2003.

3. As against the said order of acquittal, Criminal Revision case in Crl.R.C.No.801 of 2003 has been filed by the petitioner/P.W.2 herein and this Court by order dated, 25.7.2006, while setting aside the judgment dated 05.2.2003, has remanded the matter back to the trial Court for further proceedings. Paragraphs 18 to 20 of the said order dated 25.7.2006, read thus:-

18. In view of the decisions cited supra, since the answers given by A.2. to A.5 for the questions framed under Section 313 Cr.P.C, have not been incorporated or written in the statements and only signatures have been obtained from the accused below each questions, I am of the view that on this score alone, the revision has to be allowed and remanded back for further proceedings.

19. In Satyajit Banerjee vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2005 SCC (Criminal) 276, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

26. The law laid down in Best Bakery Case (2004 (4) SCC 158), in the aforesaid extraordinary circumstances cannot be applied to all cases against the established principles of criminal jurisprudence. Direction for retrial should not be made in all or every case where acquittal of accused is for want of adequate or reliable evidence. In best Bakery Case, the first trial was found to be a face and is described as "mock trial". Therefore, the direction for retrial was in fact, for a real trial. Such extraordinary situation alone can justify the directions as made by this Court in Best Bakery Case.

27. So far as the position of law is concerned, we are very clear that even if a retrial is direction in exercise of revisional powers by the High Court, the evidence already recorded at the initial trial cannot be erased or wiped out from the record of the case. The trial Judge has to decide the case on the basis of the evidence already on record and the additional evidence which would be recorded on retrial.

28. With the above clarification, we decline to interfere in the order of remand. To put the matter beyond any shadow of doubt we further clarify and reiterate that the trial Judge, after retrial, shall take a decision on the basis of the entire evidence on record and strictly in accordance with law, without in any manner, being influenced or inhibited by anything said on the evidence in the judgment of the High Court or this Court".

20. In the above circumstances, the acquittal of the accused are set aside. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Maduranthagam, is directed to record answers to the questions under Section 313 Cr.P.C, put to the accused, can record additional evidence if necessary, and to consider what is the actual offence committed by the accused and then give fresh judgment, on merits and in accordance with la