State Of Tamilnadu Rep by SI of Police,ERAINEL vs Anish Rajan Enta Anish Advocate - Adv A.Vimalan — 390/2022
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 380,457. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 18th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNKK180054842022
Filing Number
5484/2022
Filing Date
21-07-2022
Registration No
390/2022
Registration Date
27-07-2022
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Eraniel
Judge
1-Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
482
Police Station
ERAINEL P.S
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State Of Tamilnadu Rep by SI of Police,ERAINEL
Adv. Public Prosecutor
Respondent(s)
Anish Rajan Enta Anish Advocate - Adv A.Vimalan
Jothi(Karthic)
Adv. Adv. Y. Nalany Chellam
Siva
Adv. Adv. Y. Nalany Chellam
Karthick
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Questioning
Part Heard
Part Heard
Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 13-03-2026 | Part Heard |
| 11-03-2026 | Part Heard |
| 09-03-2026 | Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court at Eraniel acquitted all four accused persons (Anish Rajan, Jothi, Shiva, and Karthik) of charges under Indian Penal Code sections 457 (burglary) and 380 (theft) in a case involving an alleged ₹1,000 theft from a temple donation box. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the alleged theft, as the confessional statement of the first accused lacked corroborating witness testimony and independent evidence, and the entire case relied on circumstantial evidence that did not meet the legal threshold for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court at Eraniel acquitted all four accused persons (Anish Rajan, Jothi, Shiva, and Karthik) of charges under Indian Penal Code sections 457 (burglary) and 380 (theft) in a case involving an alleged ₹1,000 theft from a temple donation box. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the alleged theft, as the confessional statement of the first accused lacked corroborating witness testimony and independent evidence, and the entire case relied on circumstantial evidence that did not meet the legal threshold for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts