STATE OF TAMILNADU REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE UTHANGARAI POLICE STATION vs JOTHI — 238/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 296(b),118(1),115(2). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 27th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNKI120017532025
e-Filing Number
09-10-2025
Filing Number
1752/2025
Filing Date
27-10-2025
Registration No
238/2025
Registration Date
18-12-2025
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthangarai
Judge
1-Judicial Magistrate, Uthangarai
Decision Date
27th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
78
Police Station
UTHANGARAI POLICE STATION
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE OF TAMILNADU REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE UTHANGARAI POLICE STATION
Adv. Inspecter of police Uthangarai police station
Respondent(s)
JOTHI
PAVANI
Babu
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial Magistrate, Uthangarai
Disposed
Trial
Trial
Issue of Service
Issue of Service
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 25-03-2026 | Trial |
| 23-03-2026 | Trial |
| 12-03-2026 | Issue of Service |
| 18-12-2025 | Issue of Service |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State of Tamil Nadu v. Jothi, Pavani, and Babu (Case 238/2025) Court Decision: The Criminal Court at Uthangarai acquitted all three accused (Jothi, Pavani, and Babu) of charges under BNS sections 296(b), 115(2), and 118(1), finding the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the key prosecution witnesses—the complainant and eyewitness—gave contradictory statements and recanted their allegations, claiming settlement with the accused, thereby undermining the prosecution's case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: State of Tamil Nadu v. Jothi, Pavani, and Babu (Case 238/2025) Court Decision: The Criminal Court at Uthangarai acquitted all three accused (Jothi, Pavani, and Babu) of charges under BNS sections 296(b), 115(2), and 118(1), finding the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the key prosecution witnesses—the complainant and eyewitness—gave contradictory statements and recanted their allegations, claiming settlement with the accused, thereby undermining the prosecution's case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts