State Of Tamilnadu Rep by SI of Police,VELLICHANTHAI vs Siva — 278/2020

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 394. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNKK180024462020

Filing Number

2438/2020

Filing Date

09-Sep-2020

Registration No

278/2020

Registration Date

09-Sep-2020

Court

Judicial Magistrate Court, Eraniel

Judge

1-Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 19-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

59

Police Station

VELLICHANTHAI P.S

Year

2019

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 394

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State Of Tamilnadu Rep by SI of Police,VELLICHANTHAI

    Adv. APP JM ERANIEL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Siva

  2. 2.Karthick @ Jothi

  3. 3.Ajith @ Ajith Kumar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Eraniel acquitted all three accused persons (Shiva, Karthik, and Ajith) of charges under Indian Penal Code Section 394 (dacoity) on March 18, 2026. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, as the government's witnesses provided contradictory statements regarding confessional evidence, and crucial circumstantial evidence could not be satisfactorily established to connect the accused to the alleged robbery incident. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Judicial Magistrate

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    EvidenceView PDF

  6. 13-Mar-2026

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate

  7. 11-Mar-2026

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate

  8. 09-Mar-2026

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate

  9. 03-Mar-2026

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate

  10. 02-Mar-2026

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate

  11. 25-Feb-2026

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate

  12. 18-Feb-2026

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate

  13. 11-Feb-2026

    EvidenceView PDF

  14. 11-Feb-2026

    Part Heard

    Judicial Magistrate

  15. 02-Feb-2026

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate

  16. 12-Dec-2025

    Framing of Charges

    Judicial Magistrate

  17. 03-Oct-2025

    Framing of Charges

    Judicial Magistrate

  18. 11-Sep-2025

    Framing of Charges

    Judicial Magistrate

  19. 19-Jun-2025

    Framing of Charges

    Judicial Magistrate

  20. 05-Jun-2025

    Copies

    Judicial Magistrate

  21. 04-Apr-2025

    Service Pending-Summon

    Judicial Magistrate

  22. 21-Feb-2025

    Compliance

    Judicial Magistrate

  23. 28-Jun-2024

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  24. 05-Dec-2023

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  25. 04-Aug-2023

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  26. 10-May-2023

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  27. 17-Feb-2023

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  28. 21-Nov-2022

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  29. 17-Aug-2022

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  30. 20-Jun-2022

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  31. 05-Apr-2022

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  32. 04-Jan-2022

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  33. 05-Oct-2021

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  34. 20-Jul-2021

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  35. 07-May-2021

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  36. 06-Feb-2021

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  37. 25-Nov-2020

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  38. 09-Sep-2020

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  39. 09-Sep-2020

    Case filed

    Registration No. 278/2020

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Eraniel acquitted all three accused persons (Shiva, Karthik, and Ajith) of charges under Indian Penal Code Section 394 (dacoity) on March 18, 2026. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, as the government's witnesses provided contradictory statements regarding confessional evidence, and crucial circumstantial evidence could not be satisfactorily established to connect the accused to the alleged robbery incident. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case