IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 31.07.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.R.C.No.1194 of 2009 K.Ganapathy ... Petitioner vs 1.A.Rasu @ Subramani 2.A.Nagarasu 3.A.Sundarraj 4.A.Selvam @ Gurusamy 5.S.Ganesan @ Kannaiyan 6.S.Shanmugam @ Mahalingam 7.A.Parameshwaran @ Eswaran 8.A.Nallasivam 9.The Inspector of Police, Modakkurichi Police Station, Erode District. … Respondents Criminal Revision filed under section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, in S.C.No.79 of 2009 dated 29.09.2009. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Kumaraguru For Respondents: Mr.S.Dhanasekaran for R1 to R8 Mr.Mohammed Riyaz, Government Advocate (Crl.side) (R9) O R D E R Petitioner challenges the judgment of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, passed in S.C.No.79 of 2009 on 29.09.2009. 2. In such case, eight accused stood trial for offences under Sections 147, 148, 506(ii) IPC, Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Properties (Prevention of Damages and Loss) Act, 1992 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Properties (Prevention of Damages and Loss) Act, 1992 r/w 149 IPC. The prosecution case was that on 07.02.2009, at about 05.00 p.m. due to prior dispute over a temple property, all the accused, forming themselves into an unlawful assembly, not only caused damage to motorcycles of the witnesses using weapons and kerosene but also threatened to do away with them and therefore rendered themselves punishable for the aforesaid offences. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined ten witnesses and marked six exhibits and thirteen material objects. One witness was examined on behalf of the defence and three exhibits were marked. 4. On appreciation of materials before it, the trial Court rendered a finding of acquittal. Against such finding, the present criminal revision has been filed. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Crl.side). 6. The trial Court has found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt by not sending the motorcycles which were said to have been set ablaze for chemical analysis to ascertain whether the same have been burnt by pouring kerosene or not. It also found that none nonpartisan had been examined. On the aforesaid reasoning, the trial Court has held that the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt and accordingly, acquitted them. This Court finds no error in the judgment under challenge. 7. This Criminal Revision shall stand dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gm To 1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Erode. 2.The Inspector of Police, Modakkurichi Police Station, Erode District. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 1 cc to Mr.S.Dhanasekaran ,Advocate, SR.No.34565 Crl.R.C.No.1194 of 2009 kji(co) pmk.21.8.2014 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/