SI HARI KRISHNAN vs AYYAPPAN — 174/2025

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 379. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 16th March 2026.

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNKA100014452025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

26-03-2025

Filing Number

1445/2025

Filing Date

01-04-2025

Registration No

174/2025

Registration Date

01-04-2025

Court

Judicial Magistrate Courts, Ulundurpet

Judge

22-Judicial Magistrate No.I

Decision Date

16th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

FIR Details

FIR Number

49

Police Station

Elavanasoorkottai P.S.

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 Section 379
MP/1/2025 Classification : 317 Cr.PC Section SI HARI KRISHNANAYYAPPAN
MP/2/2025 Classification : 317 Cr.PC Section Kottai
MP/3/2025 Classification : 317 Cr.PC Section SHO elavanasoor kottai
MP/4/2025 Classification : 317 Cr.PC Section SHO Elavanusoor kottaiAYYAPPAN

Petitioner(s)

SI HARI KRISHNAN

Respondent(s)

AYYAPPAN

mervin

Hearing History

Judge: 22-Judicial Magistrate No.I

16-03-2026

Disposed

14-03-2026

Questioning

12-03-2026

Questioning

11-03-2026

Questioning

06-03-2026

Evidence

Final Orders / Judgements

16-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

SUMMARY OF CASE 174/2025 Court acquitted defendants Ayyappan and Mervin of theft charges under IPC Section 379. Despite government witnesses testifying about illegal sand mining from a village pond on February 14-15, 2024, the court found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to significant inconsistencies in witness statements regarding timings, vehicle identification, and procedural irregularities in evidence documentation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

04-03-2026
Deposition
11-03-2026
Deposition
casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY OF CASE 174/2025 Court acquitted defendants Ayyappan and Mervin of theft charges under IPC Section 379. Despite government witnesses testifying about illegal sand mining from a village pond on February 14-15, 2024, the court found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to significant inconsistencies in witness statements regarding timings, vehicle identification, and procedural irregularities in evidence documentation. 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

Judicial Magistrate Courts, Ulundurpet All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case