STATE BY PSI, HONNALI PS, HONNALI vs Chandrappa Kademane S/o Shivappa Kademane — 345/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 143,147,341,504,506r/w149. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 01st April 2026.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: KADG520006452024
Filing Number
345/2024
Filing Date
24-04-2024
Registration No
345/2024
Registration Date
24-04-2024
Court
CIVIL JUGDE AND JMFC, HONNALI
Judge
255-PRL CIVIL JUGDE AND JMFC HONNALI
Decision Date
01st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
0074
Police Station
HONNALI PS
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE BY PSI, HONNALI PS (Police Station), HONNALI
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Chandrappa Kademane S/o Shivappa Kademane
Hanuma Gowda S/o Channappa
Eshawarappa S/o Dodda Thimmappa
Basavanagowda S/o Mahadevappa
Channappa S/o Hanumanthappa
Umesha S/o Ramappa
Prabhu S/o Parameshwarappa
Shivu S/o Basappa
Basavanagowda S/o Shivarudrappa
Hearing History
Judge: 255-PRL CIVIL JUGDE AND JMFC HONNALI
Disposed
JUDGEMENT CRIMINAL
JUDGEMENT CRIMINAL
NBW
EVIDENCE CRIMINAL
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 01-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 26-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT CRIMINAL |
| 13-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT CRIMINAL |
| 09-03-2026 | NBW |
| 04-03-2026 | EVIDENCE CRIMINAL |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case 345/2024 Summary Court Decision: The court acquitted all nine accused persons of charges under IPC Sections 143, 147, 341, 504, and 506 r/w 149 (unlawful assembly, rioting, wrongful restraint, abusive language, and criminal intimidation). The sole prosecution witness (PW1), who was the informant and victim, did not support the prosecution's case, and the court found insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, thereby awarding the accused the benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case 345/2024 Summary Court Decision: The court acquitted all nine accused persons of charges under IPC Sections 143, 147, 341, 504, and 506 r/w 149 (unlawful assembly, rioting, wrongful restraint, abusive language, and criminal intimidation). The sole prosecution witness (PW1), who was the informant and victim, did not support the prosecution's case, and the court found insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, thereby awarding the accused the benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts