State Of Tamilnadu Rep by SI of Police,VELLICHANTHAI vs Anishrajan Enta Anish Advocate - Adv A.Vimalan — 128/2022
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 457,380. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 17th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNKK180026592022
Filing Number
2659/2022
Filing Date
29-04-2022
Registration No
128/2022
Registration Date
29-04-2022
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Eraniel
Judge
1-Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
17th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
25
Police Station
VELLICHANTHAI P.S
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State Of Tamilnadu Rep by SI of Police,VELLICHANTHAI
Adv. Public Prosecutor
Respondent(s)
Anishrajan Enta Anish Advocate - Adv A.Vimalan
Jothi(Karthick)
Adv. Adv. Y. Nalany Chellam
Siva
Adv. Adv. Y. Nalany Chellam
Karthick
Adv. Adv. Y. Nalany Chellam
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Judgement
Questioning
Part Heard
Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 13-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 11-03-2026 | Part Heard |
| 09-03-2026 | Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Eraniel acquitted all four accused persons of theft charges under Indian Penal Code Sections 457 and 380, finding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the alleged theft of temple valuables worth ₹42,500. The court held that while circumstantial evidence indicated a theft occurred, the prosecution's evidence—including a confessional statement and witness testimony—was insufficient and contradictory to establish the accused's guilt, particularly noting the accused's denial and lack of corroborating physical evidence linking them to the crime. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Eraniel acquitted all four accused persons of theft charges under Indian Penal Code Sections 457 and 380, finding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the alleged theft of temple valuables worth ₹42,500. The court held that while circumstantial evidence indicated a theft occurred, the prosecution's evidence—including a confessional statement and witness testimony—was insufficient and contradictory to establish the accused's guilt, particularly noting the accused's denial and lack of corroborating physical evidence linking them to the crime. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts