INSPECTOR OF POLICE vs SELVARAJ — 130/2021
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 341,427,307,34. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 27th April 2026.
SC - Sessions Case
CNR: TNKI160022472021
Filing Number
51/2021
Filing Date
13-12-2021
Registration No
130/2021
Registration Date
13-12-2021
Court
Sub Court, Denkanikottai
Judge
3-Subordinate Judge, Denkanikottai
Decision Date
27th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
54
Police Station
ROYAKOTTAI POLICE STATION
Year
2017
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
SELVARAJ
MURUGAN
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Subordinate Judge, Denkanikottai
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 24-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 10-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 18-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Case 130/2021 The Denkanikottai Court acquitted both defendants (Peselvaraj and Murugan) of charges under IPC Sections 341, 307 with Section 34, and 427. Finding insufficient evidence to prove the alleged attack beyond reasonable doubt, the court determined that the prosecution failed to establish the crucial facts of the incident despite government witness testimonies. The court emphasized gaps in evidence—including lack of medical corroboration from initial treatment facilities, inconsistencies in witness statements regarding which leg was injured, and failure to produce physical evidence linking defendants to the alleged weapons. Consequently, both accused were discharged under CrPC Section 235(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary of Case 130/2021 The Denkanikottai Court acquitted both defendants (Peselvaraj and Murugan) of charges under IPC Sections 341, 307 with Section 34, and 427. Finding insufficient evidence to prove the alleged attack beyond reasonable doubt, the court determined that the prosecution failed to establish the crucial facts of the incident despite government witness testimonies. The court emphasized gaps in evidence—including lack of medical corroboration from initial treatment facilities, inconsistencies in witness statements regarding which leg was injured, and failure to produce physical evidence linking defendants to the alleged weapons. Consequently, both accused were discharged under CrPC Section 235(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts