State Of Tamilnadu Rep by SI of Police,Cholachel vs Sivasangu @ Sivasankar — 238/2020

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 457, 380. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 13th March 2026.

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNKK180023272020

Case disposed

Filing Number

2319/2020

Filing Date

03-09-2020

Registration No

238/2020

Registration Date

03-09-2020

Court

Judicial Magistrate Court, Eraniel

Judge

1-Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

13th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

FIR Details

FIR Number

22

Police Station

COLACHEL P.S

Year

2018

Acts & Sections

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 Section 457, 380
MP/3/2024 Classification : 317 Cr.PC Section State Of Tamilnadu Rep by SI of Police,CholachelSivasangu @ Sivasankar

Petitioner(s)

State Of Tamilnadu Rep by SI of Police,Cholachel

Adv. APP JM ERANIEL

Respondent(s)

Sivasangu @ Sivasankar

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Judicial Magistrate

13-03-2026

Disposed

11-03-2026

Judgement

03-03-2026

Questioning

02-03-2026

Part Heard

25-02-2026

Part Heard

Final Orders / Judgements

13-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Eraniel acquitted both accused persons (Sivasangu and another) of charges under IPC Sections 457 and 380 (theft), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that while a theft incident occurred, the government's evidence—including contradictory witness testimonies and an inadmissible confessional statement—was insufficient to establish that the accused committed the crime. Consequently, the accused were discharged from all charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

10-06-2024
Evidence
24-06-2024
Evidence
03-03-2026
Deposition
03-03-2026
Deposition
casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Eraniel acquitted both accused persons (Sivasangu and another) of charges under IPC Sections 457 and 380 (theft), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that while a theft incident occurred, the government's evidence—including contradictory witness testimonies and an inadmissible confessional statement—was insufficient to establish that the accused committed the crime. Consequently, the accused were discharged from all charges. 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 Court, Eraniel All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case