Inspector of Police, Town South PS vs Madhavan — 33/2025

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 147,148,341,307. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 27th March 2026.

Case disposed

SC - Sessions Case

CNR: TNDG030006912025

Filing Number

689/2025

Filing Date

01-Feb-2025

Registration No

33/2025

Registration Date

01-Feb-2025

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Dindugul

Judge

3-Chief Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

27-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 17-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

170

Police Station

Dindigul Town South Police Station

Year

2022

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 147,148,341,307
Mp/35/2025 Classification : 317 Cr.pc Section Inspector of Police, Town South PSPraveenkumar

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Inspector of Police, Town South PS (Police Station)

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Madhavan

  2. 2.Vignu Endra Vignesh

  3. 3.Karthikeyan

  4. 4.Mugeshkumar

  5. 5.Vishwa

  6. 6.Bharath

  7. 7.Praveenkumar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 27-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: S.C.No.33/2025 Court Decision: The Tirupuranturai Assistant Sessions Court acquitted all seven accused (Madhavan, Vignu Endra Vignesh, Karthikeyan, Mukesh Kumar, Visva, Bharath, and Praveen Kumar) of charges under IPC sections 147, 148, 307, and 341, finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite credible evidence of a violent attack. Key Facts: On July 25, 2022, the victim Santhil Kumar was allegedly attacked by seven accused with knives and sickles, sustaining multiple injuries to his nose, head, and eyes. Though the investigating officer's testimony supported the charges and weapons were recovered, the court found government witnesses contradicted the prosecution case and provided conflicting accounts. Reasoning: The court noted that key eyewitnesses, including the injured victim's companion, gave unreliable testimonies that damaged rather than supported the prosecution's case, warranting acquittal under the benefit of doubt principle. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 27-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  4. 25-Mar-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  5. 25-Mar-2026

    Questioning

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  6. 23-Mar-2026

    Service Pending-Summon

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  7. 17-Mar-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  8. 17-Mar-2026

    Service Pending-Summon

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  9. 11-Mar-2026

    Service Pending-Summon

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  10. 24-Feb-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  11. 24-Feb-2026

    Service Pending-Summon

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  12. 10-Feb-2026

    Service Pending-Summon

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  13. 22-Jan-2026

    Service Pending-Summon

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  14. 07-Jan-2026

    Service Pending-Summon

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  15. 24-Dec-2025

    Service Pending-Summon

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  16. 11-Dec-2025

    Service Pending-Summon

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  17. 26-Nov-2025

    Service Pending-Summon

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  18. 14-Nov-2025

    Appearance

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  19. 05-Nov-2025

    Appearance

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  20. 01-Nov-2025

    Appearance

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  21. 23-Oct-2025

    Appearance

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  22. 09-Oct-2025

    Appearance

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  23. 24-Sep-2025

    Appearance

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  24. 17-Sep-2025

    Appearance

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  25. 16-Sep-2025

    Appearance

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  26. 09-Sep-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  27. 02-Sep-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  28. 13-Aug-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  29. 04-Aug-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  30. 22-Jul-2025

    Service Pending

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  31. 09-Jul-2025

    Service Pending

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  32. 25-Jun-2025

    Service Pending

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  33. 12-Jun-2025

    Service Pending

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  34. 11-Jun-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  35. 28-May-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  36. 14-May-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  37. 30-Apr-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  38. 25-Apr-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  39. 16-Apr-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  40. 09-Apr-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  41. 27-Mar-2025

    Appearance

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  42. 14-Mar-2025

    Appearance

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  43. 11-Mar-2025

    Appearance

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  44. 27-Feb-2025

    Appearance

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  45. 25-Feb-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  46. 01-Feb-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 33/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: S.C.No.33/2025 Court Decision: The Tirupuranturai Assistant Sessions Court acquitted all seven accused (Madhavan, Vignu Endra Vignesh, Karthikeyan, Mukesh Kumar, Visva, Bharath, and Praveen Kumar) of charges under IPC sections 147, 148, 307, and 341, finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite credible evidence of a violent attack. Key Facts: On July 25, 2022, the victim Santhil Kumar was allegedly attacked by seven accused with knives and sickles, sustaining multiple injuries to his nose, head, and eyes. Though the investigating officer's testimony supported the charges and weapons were recovered, the court found government witnesses contradicted the prosecution case and provided conflicting accounts. Reasoning: The court noted that key eyewitnesses, including the injured victim's companion, gave unreliable testimonies that damaged rather than supported the prosecution's case, warranting acquittal under the benefit of doubt principle. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case