Inspector Of Police, Sulur vs Moorthi Advocate - KAVITHA M — 58/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 279, 304(A). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNCB180036982024

e-Filing Number

23-06-2024

Filing Number

3684/2024

Filing Date

27-Jun-2024

Registration No

58/2024

Registration Date

27-Jun-2024

Court

Judicial Magistrate Court, Sulur

Judge

31-Judicial Magistrate, Sulur

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 18-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

116

Police Station

Sulur Police Station

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 279, 304(A)
Mp/4/2026 Classification : 317 Cr.pc Section Inspector Of Police, Sulur
Mp/5/2026 Classification : 294 Cr.pc Section Inspector Of Police, SulurMoorthi

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Inspector Of Police, Sulur

    Adv. Sub Inspector of Police Sulur Police Station

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Moorthi Advocate - KAVITHA M

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    The Judicial Magistrate Court in Sulur acquitted the accused Moorthi of charges under IPC Sections 279 (rash driving) and 304-A (death by negligence) in a fatal road accident case. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, primarily because the sole eyewitness (LW2) was not examined, leaving only formal witnesses whose testimonies could not establish the accused's identity or rash/negligent driving. Under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, an adverse inference was drawn against the prosecution for withholding the critical eyewitness. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-May-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate, Sulur

  4. 12-May-2026

    Judgement

    Judicial Magistrate, Sulur

  5. 11-May-2026

    Judgement

    Judicial Magistrate, Sulur

  6. 07-May-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  7. 07-May-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  8. 07-May-2026

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate, Sulur

  9. 06-May-2026

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate, Sulur

  10. 09-Apr-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  11. 09-Apr-2026

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate, Sulur

  12. 11-Mar-2026

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate, Sulur

  13. 12-Feb-2026

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate, Sulur

  14. 24-Dec-2025

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate, Sulur

  15. 24-Nov-2025

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate, Sulur

  16. 17-Sep-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  17. 17-Sep-2025

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate, Sulur

  18. 18-Aug-2025

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate, Sulur

  19. 28-Jul-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate, Sulur

  20. 25-Jul-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate, Sulur

  21. 02-Jun-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Judicial Magistrate, Sulur

  22. 08-May-2025

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate, Sulur

  23. 06-Feb-2025

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate, Sulur

  24. 02-Jan-2025

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate, Sulur

  25. 12-Dec-2024

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate, Sulur

  26. 30-Sep-2024

    Service Pending-Summon

    Judicial Magistrate, Sulur

  27. 30-Aug-2024

    Service Pending-Summon

    Judicial Magistrate, Sulur

  28. 31-Jul-2024

    Service Pending-Summon

    Judicial Magistrate, Sulur

  29. 27-Jun-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  30. 27-Jun-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 58/2024

casestatus.in Summary

The Judicial Magistrate Court in Sulur acquitted the accused Moorthi of charges under IPC Sections 279 (rash driving) and 304-A (death by negligence) in a fatal road accident case. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, primarily because the sole eyewitness (LW2) was not examined, leaving only formal witnesses whose testimonies could not establish the accused's identity or rash/negligent driving. Under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, an adverse inference was drawn against the prosecution for withholding the critical eyewitness. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case