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
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
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
EVIDENCE-C
EVIDENCE-C
EVIDENCE-C
EVIDENCE-C
EVIDENCE-C
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts