Inspector of Police, Vadamadurai PS., vs Anubam Bauri Advocate - T.Balachandran — 32/2023
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 302. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 17th April 2026.
SC - Sessions Case
CNR: TNDG010017792023
Filing Number
1258/2023
Filing Date
14-03-2023
Registration No
32/2023
Registration Date
14-03-2023
Court
Principal District Court, Dindugul
Judge
2-Addl. District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
17th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
294
Police Station
Vadamadurai P.S
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Inspector of Police, Vadamadurai PS (Police Station).,
Adv. Public Prosecutor
Respondent(s)
Anubam Bauri Advocate - T.Balachandran
Mahabir Dhibar
Adv. J.Rajarathinam
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Addl. District and Sessions Judge
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Questioning
Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 02-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 26-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 12-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 03-03-2026 | Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Additional District and Sessions Court, Dindigul acquitted both accused persons (Anupam Pauri and Mahabir Dibar) of murder charges under IPC Section 302, finding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court identified critical gaps in the circumstantial evidence, including a two-day gap between the alleged altercation and the body's discovery, contradictory witness testimonies about the incident's origin, and lack of direct ocular evidence connecting the accused to the fatal injuries. The court also directed victim compensation for the deceased's two minor children through the District Legal Services Authority. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Decision Summary The Additional District and Sessions Court, Dindigul acquitted both accused persons (Anupam Pauri and Mahabir Dibar) of murder charges under IPC Section 302, finding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court identified critical gaps in the circumstantial evidence, including a two-day gap between the alleged altercation and the body's discovery, contradictory witness testimonies about the incident's origin, and lack of direct ocular evidence connecting the accused to the fatal injuries. The court also directed victim compensation for the deceased's two minor children through the District Legal Services Authority. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts