met the accused at 3.40 p.m. outside the Tahshildar's office gate and that in his cross examination, he has deposed that the accused was standing near the outer gate of the Taluk office 5 feet away from the gate and he was standing on the eastern side of the road on the right hand side of the gate, whereas PW5, who had accompanied PW2 and PW3, had deposed that he met the accused near his office gate and that in his cross examination, he had stated that when he and his son PW3 were standing near Tahsildhar's Office gate, the accused had met them, whereas it is the evidence of PW11 that he had sent PW3 & PW5 along with PW2, at 3.40 p.m. to meet the accused and again at 3.50 p.m. PW2 and PW3 came outside the Tahsildhar's office at Palacode, Dharmapuri Main road and PW3 has shown the signal and that, he was able to see everything from where he was standing at the entrance of the Thasildhar's office, whereas, the entire evidence of PW2, PW3, PW5 & PW11 is belied by the evidence of PW9 Malliga, Zonal Deputy Tahsildhar, who had deposed in her chief examination that when she was in the office, some persons claiming to be from the Vigilance Department had come to the office at 03.00p.m and introduced themselves and forced the accused to sit in A2 Clerk’s seat during that time.. As per the prosecution, the occurrence viz; demand, acceptance and recovery is stated to have taken place around 3.45 p.m. on 28.09.2004 outside the Tahshildar's office, whereas it is the categorical evidence of PW9 that the accused was detained inside her office at 03.00 p.m by some persons claiming to be from Vigilance and that they had forced him to sit in the A2 Clerk’s seat. Apart from that, while analysing the evidence of PW5, he has not deposed about the presence of PW2/the official shadow witness throughout the entire proceedings and further, it is the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
