State by the PSI Town PS Hosapete vs Vishnu D Son of Late Raamu — 2159/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita Section 304. Status: EVIDENCE-C. Next hearing: 10th April 2026.

C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES

CNR: KAVN040033122025

EVIDENCE-C

Next Hearing

10th April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

2159/2025

Filing Date

07-05-2025

Registration No

2159/2025

Registration Date

07-05-2025

Court

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HOSAPETE

Judge

170-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT HOSAPETE

FIR Details

FIR Number

198

Police Station

HOSAPETE TOWN PS

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita Section 304

Petitioner(s)

State by the PSI Town PS (Police Station) Hosapete

Adv. Assistant Public Prosecutor

Respondent(s)

Vishnu D Son of Late Raamu

Raahul

Hearing History

Judge: 170-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT HOSAPETE

18-03-2026

EVIDENCE-C

07-03-2026

EVIDENCE-C

30-01-2026

EVIDENCE-C

03-01-2026

EVIDENCE-C

22-11-2025

EVIDENCE-C

Interim Orders

22-11-2025
Deposition
22-11-2025
Deposition
18-03-2026
Deposition
18-03-2026
Deposition
18-03-2026
Deposition

Case Summary: CC 2159/2025 Court: Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Vijayanagarar, Hosapete Outcome: The witness (Avuun, 42-year-old) was examined and cross-examined in this criminal case involving theft charges. The witness testified that police called him to sign a panchanama (seizure document) without explaining why, and he cannot identify the accused. The court recorded his evidence as an adverse witness for the prosecution on 18-03-2026, noting inconsistencies and that the witness appeared to have assisted the accused despite the seizure of evidence and photographs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC 2159/2025 Court: Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Vijayanagarar, Hosapete Outcome: The witness (Avuun, 42-year-old) was examined and cross-examined in this criminal case involving theft charges. The witness testified that police called him to sign a panchanama (seizure document) without explaining why, and he cannot identify the accused. The court recorded his evidence as an adverse witness for the prosecution on 18-03-2026, noting inconsistencies and that the witness appeared to have assisted the accused despite the seizure of evidence and photographs. 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. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HOSAPETE All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case