M. MAHENDRAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revision Petitioner/A.3 has focused the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the judgment dated 1/10/2012 in S.C.No.46 of 2010 passed by the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sivagangai.

(2.) THE Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/A.3 urges before this Court that the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, after disbelieving the prosecution evidence and documents should have passed the judgment in S.C.No.46 of 2010, acquitting the Revision Petitioner honourably in respect of the offences under Sections 147, 294 (b), 341 and 323 of IPC, but unfortunately, the benefit of honourable acquittal had not been showered on the Revision Petitioner by the trial Court.

(3.) AT this juncture, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the observation made by the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge in the judgment in S.C.No.46 of 2010 dated 1/10/2012, wherein it is specifically observed that the witnesses on the side of the prosecution viz., P.Ws.1 to 3 had not supported the prosecution and resultantly, the benefit of doubt was granted to the Petitioner, culminating in his acquittal as per Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C.