LAWS(MAD)-2012-11-342

RAJAPANDI Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KARIYAPATTI POLICE STATION

Decided On November 26, 2012
RAJAPANDI Appellant
V/S
State Represented By The Sub Inspector Of Police Kariyapatti Police Station Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner/Sole Accused has projected the instant Criminal Revision (MD) No.562 of 2012 as against the judgment dated 23.11.2010 in S.T.C.No.2579 of 2010, passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Virudhunagar.

(2.) THE Learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Virudhunagar, while passing the judgment in S.T.C.No.2579 of 2010 on 23.11.2010 had interalia observed that P.W.1 and P.W.2 had not corroborated the case of the prosecution and further, they were treated as hostile witnesses and further opined that based on the evidence of P.W.3 (Investigating Officer), the conclusion could not be arrived at that only the Accused Nos.1 and 3 had committed the offence under Sections 294(b) and 323 of I.P.C. and A2 has committed the offence under Section 294(b) I.P.C. and resultantly, gave them the benefit of doubt, since it had come to a conclusion that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts in respect of A1 to A3 and consequently, acquitted them under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C.

(3.) THE Learned counsel for the Petitioner/A3 submits that the Petitioner/A3 has come out successful in the examination conducted on 22.08.2012 by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board for the post of Grade II Police Constable and since the Trial Court had acquitted the Petitioner/A3 by giving him the benefit of doubt, it amounts to stigma and that he apprehends that the Police Authorities would not select him obviously, mentioning the Rule 14 (b) (iv) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, inasmuch as, P.Ws.1 and 2 were treated as hostile witness by the prosecution.