Inspector of Police, Ammainaickanur PS vs Kasipandi — 69/2024

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 415 (3). Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 22nd April 2026.

CRLA - Criminal Appeal

CNR: TNDG010035212024

Case disposed

Filing Number

2250/2024

Filing Date

23-07-2024

Registration No

69/2024

Registration Date

23-07-2024

Court

Principal District Court, Dindugul

Judge

2-Addl. District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

22nd April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

FIR Details

FIR Number

260

Police Station

Ammayanaickanur Police Station

Year

2013

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Section 415 (3)

Petitioner(s)

Inspector of Police, Ammainaickanur PS (Police Station)

Adv. Public Prosecutor

Respondent(s)

Kasipandi

Hearing History

Judge: 2-Addl. District and Sessions Judge

22-04-2026

Disposed

09-04-2026

Judgement

12-03-2026

Arguments

03-03-2026

Arguments

04-02-2026

Arguments

Final Orders / Judgements

22-04-2026
Copy of Judgment

Summary The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul reversed the trial court's conviction of Kasipandi for rash/negligent driving causing death (IPC §279, 337, 304-A). The court found the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to: inconsistent eyewitness testimony (PW1 admitted not facing the road; PW2's account had contradictions and admitted not witnessing rash driving), lack of independent corroboration, procedural delays in FIR forwarding and vehicle inspection, and critically, no eyewitness identified the accused as the bus driver. The conviction was set aside and the accused acquitted with fine refund. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul reversed the trial court's conviction of Kasipandi for rash/negligent driving causing death (IPC §279, 337, 304-A). The court found the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to: inconsistent eyewitness testimony (PW1 admitted not facing the road; PW2's account had contradictions and admitted not witnessing rash driving), lack of independent corroboration, procedural delays in FIR forwarding and vehicle inspection, and critically, no eyewitness identified the accused as the bus driver. The conviction was set aside and the accused acquitted with fine refund. 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

Principal District Court, Dindugul All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case