State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector of PoliceCOLACHEL P.S vs Arul Sunith Enta Sunith Advocate - Adv.Stanly Casmic Sundar.S. — 395/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 309(4). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 17th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNKK180055802024
e-Filing Number
19-12-2024
Filing Number
5553/2024
Filing Date
20-Dec-2024
Registration No
395/2025
Registration Date
25-Jun-2025
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Eraniel
Judge
1-Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
17-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Last updated 19-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
300
Police Station
COLACHEL P.S
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector of PoliceCOLACHEL P.S
Adv. Public Prosecutor
Respondent(s)
-
1.Arul Sunith Enta Sunith Advocate - Adv.Stanly Casmic Sundar.S.
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
17-Mar-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
Case Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court at Eraniel acquitted the accused, Aruul Sunith, of charges under Section 309(4) of the Indian Penal Code 2023 for allegedly committing chain snatching. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, as the key evidence came solely from the complainant's statement without corroborating physical or forensic evidence establishing the accused's involvement in the theft of a 72-gram gold chain. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
17-Mar-2026
Disposed
Judicial Magistrate
-
16-Mar-2026
Judgement
Judicial Magistrate
-
13-Mar-2026
EvidenceView PDF
-
13-Mar-2026
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate
-
11-Mar-2026
Trial
Judicial Magistrate
-
09-Mar-2026
Trial
Judicial Magistrate
-
07-Jan-2026
Service Pending-Summon
Judicial Magistrate
-
25-Jun-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
20-Dec-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 395/2025
Case Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court at Eraniel acquitted the accused, Aruul Sunith, of charges under Section 309(4) of the Indian Penal Code 2023 for allegedly committing chain snatching. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, as the key evidence came solely from the complainant's statement without corroborating physical or forensic evidence establishing the accused's involvement in the theft of a 72-gram gold chain. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts