State Of Tamilnadu Rep by SI of Police,ERAINEL vs Vijayakumar and another — 789/2022
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),323,506(1). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 13th March 2026.
STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case
CNR: TNKK180063932022
Filing Number
6393/2022
Filing Date
06-08-2022
Registration No
789/2022
Registration Date
24-08-2022
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Eraniel
Judge
1-Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
167
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)
Vijayakumar and another
Ratheesh
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Judgement
Questioning
Part Heard
Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 09-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 23-02-2026 | Part Heard |
| 15-12-2025 | Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court, Eraniel acquitted two accused persons (Vijayakumar and Rethish) of charges under IPC Sections 294(b) and 506 for want of sufficient evidence, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations of using abusive language and criminal intimidation. The court held that the sole eyewitness (PW1) retracted his initial complaint, and other prosecution witnesses provided no corroborating evidence, thus failing to meet the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. However, the court convicted both accused under IPC Section 323 (simple hurt) based on the available evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court, Eraniel acquitted two accused persons (Vijayakumar and Rethish) of charges under IPC Sections 294(b) and 506 for want of sufficient evidence, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations of using abusive language and criminal intimidation. The court held that the sole eyewitness (PW1) retracted his initial complaint, and other prosecution witnesses provided no corroborating evidence, thus failing to meet the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. However, the court convicted both accused under IPC Section 323 (simple hurt) based on the available evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts