State by Davanagere Rural PS vs Siddesha P M — 9/2023

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 306,506. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 30th April 2026.

SC - SESSION CASE

CNR: KADG010002602023

Case disposed

Filing Number

7/2023

Filing Date

01-02-2023

Registration No

9/2023

Registration Date

01-02-2023

Court

PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, DAVANGERE

Judge

889-I ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DAVANGERE

Decision Date

30th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

63

Police Station

DAVANGERE RURAL PS

Year

2022

Acts & Sections

IPC Section 306,506

Petitioner(s)

State by Davanagere Rural PS (Police Station)

Adv. PP

Respondent(s)

Siddesha P M

Hearing History

Judge: 889-I ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DAVANGERE

30-04-2026

Disposed

24-04-2026

JUDGEMENT CRIMINAL

09-04-2026

JUDGEMENT CRIMINAL

07-04-2026

FURTHER ARGUMENTS

02-04-2026

FURTHER ARGUMENTS

Final Orders / Judgements

30-04-2026
Judgment

Case Summary: SC.No.9/2023 Court Decision: Siddesha P.M. was acquitted of charges under IPC sections 306 (abetment to suicide) and 506 (criminal intimidation). The court found that a deceased's video statement alone—without evidence of sustained pressure or intention—was insufficient to prove abetment, citing the Supreme Court principle that "a stray sentence does not amount to abetment in the absence of pressure and intention." This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

06-11-2023
Deposition
07-11-2023
Deposition
28-11-2023
Deposition
29-11-2023
Deposition
04-01-2024
Deposition
07-02-2024
Deposition
02-03-2024
Deposition
26-03-2024
Deposition
29-07-2024
Deposition
29-07-2024
Deposition
24-02-2025
Orders
casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: SC.No.9/2023 Court Decision: Siddesha P.M. was acquitted of charges under IPC sections 306 (abetment to suicide) and 506 (criminal intimidation). The court found that a deceased's video statement alone—without evidence of sustained pressure or intention—was insufficient to prove abetment, citing the Supreme Court principle that "a stray sentence does not amount to abetment in the absence of pressure and intention." This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, DAVANGERE All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case