Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
3. The facts of the case in a nutshell, led to filing of this Criminal Revision Petition and necessary for disposal of the same, are as follows:-
a) On 06.08.2012, the de-facto complainant Mr.Mohammed Ali, VAO of E.Malampatti, had alleged that the accused persons had trespassed the poramboke land in S.No.232/2 and had stolen 300 tractors capacity of sand and damaged government property in S.No.232/10, 12, 15 and the stolen sand had been dumped in the pit belonging to PRP Granite's Quarry. On investigation, it was found out that the sand had been dumped on 03.08.2012, hence the complaint had been preferred for legal action.
“31. In the case in Spl S.C,22/2021, seven witnesses have been referred to as eye witnesses who would speak about the involvement of all the accused in the offences alleged by the prosecution. So far as the statements of the eye witresses namely (L W 2) Suthanthira Gandhi S/o. Nallan, (L.W 3) Mookan @ Mookaiah 5/o Nallan. (LW 9) Chinnakaruppan S/o Poochi, (L.W.10) Nagu w/o. Subiramaniyan, (LW11) Andiyappan S/o Karuppanan Thevar, (L.W 12) Palanivel S/o. Arumuga Konar and (LW 13) Malaichamy S/o Karuppanan are concerned, it has been stated that on 03.08.2012 at about 12.00 hours when the witnesses where near the Erichikulam Kanmal https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 10:34:54 am ) situated on E Malampatti road they had witnesses the incident. So far as the specific overt act on the part of this petitioner. accused in concerned, the eye witnesses would state as follows"Then PRP Granites Managing partners P. Palanichamy, PRP Polanichamy's sons Senthil Kumar and Suresh Kumar, PRP Palanichamy's wife Selvi daughter Sivaranjani, son-in-law Maharajan, PRP Polanichamy's sister's sons Murugesan Deivendran, Gandhi, Thavaselvam, PRP Company Managers Animugam, Shanmuganathan, Shanmugavel, Advocate Loganathan, PRP quarry staffs Jothibasu, Thathuvaraj and along with other states workmen were standing there. As per the overt act as stated by these witnesses, the petitioner-accused had come to the quarry along with the prime accused Palanichamy and other but has not involved herself in any of the offences committed by the other accused Further as already stated none of the documents placed by the prosecution before this court would show that the women-folk including this petitioner-accused have actively participated in the management of the partnership firm. They have not signed any of the contracts to who their active participation in the partnership firm. Therefore, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 10:34:54 am ) as already pointed out by this court mere presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence with no overt act to connect the accused with the offence cannot implicate the petitioner-accused in the offence. Added further since the averments don't make out any offence even if proved against her, this court is of the considered view that she has to be discharged from this case. Therefore this court is of the considered view that with no overt act that could be attributed to this petitioner-accused to make out an offence, this court. is of the considered view that this petitioner cannot be held to have abetted the commission of the offences alleged by the prosecution. Accordingly this court is of the considered view that these petitioner-accused in this case has to be discharged and therefore the Cr M.P No. 2345/2022 in Spl.5.C.No.22/2021 deserves admittance.”