State Of Tamilnadu Rep by SI of Police,Thiruvattar vs Sujin Advocate - Adv.Vijaya Kumar.M. — 138/2021
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b), 332, 323, 307, 506(ii). Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 10th June 2026.
SC - Sessions Case
CNR: TNKK070002992021
Next Hearing
10th June 2026
Filing Number
15/2021
Filing Date
29-09-2021
Registration No
138/2021
Registration Date
29-09-2021
Court
Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram
Judge
1-Subordinate Judge
FIR Details
FIR Number
67
Police Station
Thiruvattar P.S
Year
2018
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State Of Tamilnadu Rep by SI of Police,Thiruvattar
Adv. Public Prosecutor
Respondent(s)
Sujin Advocate - Adv.Vijaya Kumar.M.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Subordinate Judge
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 18-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 11-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 25-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 11-02-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
This document is a deposition record of witness P.W. 7 (திரு. ரவீந்திரன்) in case SC. 138/2021 from Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram, dated 28.01.2026. The witness, a retired police inspector, testified about investigating FIR No. 67/2018 under IPC sections 294(B), 332, 323, 307, 506(2) involving vehicle number TN 75 B 1189. During cross-examination, the witness's testimony was heavily challenged, with the defense arguing that the vehicle ownership was unclear, the complainant had no injuries, there was no prior enmity with the accused, and the police investigation lacked credibility. The deposition concluded with the witness maintaining his account but facing significant contradictions regarding evidence collection and the vehicle's connection to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This document is a deposition record of witness P.W. 7 (திரு. ரவீந்திரன்) in case SC. 138/2021 from Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram, dated 28.01.2026. The witness, a retired police inspector, testified about investigating FIR No. 67/2018 under IPC sections 294(B), 332, 323, 307, 506(2) involving vehicle number TN 75 B 1189. During cross-examination, the witness's testimony was heavily challenged, with the defense arguing that the vehicle ownership was unclear, the complainant had no injuries, there was no prior enmity with the accused, and the police investigation lacked credibility. The deposition concluded with the witness maintaining his account but facing significant contradictions regarding evidence collection and the vehicle's connection to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts