JUDGMENT The accused in S.C.No. 4 of 2012 is the petitioner herein. The relief sought for in the present criminal revision is to convert the order of acquittal on “benefit of doubt” into one that of “Honourable acquittal”. 2. The few facts, which are relevant for consideration herein are that the petitioner was charged for the offences under Sections 498A and 302 IPC, on the allegation that on 27.4.2010 he came to his house in drunken mood and picked up quarrel with one Dharani for not preparing fish meal, due to which, he alleged to have poured kerosene and set her ablaze and as a result, she was taken to K.M.C. Hospital, where she died on 26.5.2010, despite treatment, thereby, the accused caused cruelty to the deceased and committed murder of her. 3. The case was taken on file as P.R.C.No. 6 of 2011 by the Judicial Magistrate, Ambur and thereafter, committed to the Sessions Court and taken on file as SC No. 4/2012. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences as referred to above, examined PW1 to PW19 witnesses and produced Exs.P1 to P24 documents besides, MO1 to MO6 material objects. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on the defence side. The trial Court, on the basis of the available evidence, having found that there are lot of contradiction among the witnesses and there is no evidence much less clinching one to believe the prosecution theory that the accused had committed harassment and murder, arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused by placing sufficient and acceptable evidence indicating the nexus between the accused and the crime and accused is acquitted from the charges leveled against him, by extending the benefit of doubt. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the trial Court found that the prosecution witnesses have supported the case and their depositions were totally contrary to their theory and the dying declaration considering the contradiction found in it, was not acceptable piece of evidence, the trial court ought to have acquitted the petitioner “honourably” and not “on benefit of doubt”. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was working as S.S.I. in Ambur Police Station during the relevant point of time and is in police department, as such, if the petitioner is not acquitted honourably, he may be disqualified for promotion and other benefits on this ground alone. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the relief sought for herein, relied on the decisions of this Court in (i) Crl.R.C.No. 285/2010 dated 22.4.2010 (K. Ragu and the State) (G. Akbar Ali, J.) and (ii) Crl.Rc.Nos.296 and 299/2011 dated 4.2.2013 (P. Samipillai and another v. State) (S. Palanivelu, J.), wherein, the learned brother judges of this Court, in similar situation, following the earlier judgment of Division Bench of our High Court reported in 2005 (5) CTC 672 (DB) (Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sriperumbudur Sub Division i/c. Chengalpattu Sub Division, Kancheepuram District v. W.D. Sekaran and another) and unreported decision of the learned Single Judge in Crl.R.C.No. 369 of 2008 dated 1.4.2008, modified the finding of the lower Court by acquitting the petitioners therein honourably, instead of “on benefit of doubt”. 6. This Court much force in the argument so advanced on the side of the petitioner herein. Following the earlier judgments of our High court cited supra, this Court is inclined to modify the finding of the lower court as one that of honourable acquittal, instead of on benefit of doubt. 7. In the result, this criminal revision stands allowed, by modifying the finding of acquittal of the petitioner on benefit of doubt as that of “honourable acquittal” in SC.No. 4/2012.