Sub Inspector of Police Salavakkam Police Station vs DIWAAKAR — 147/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 296(b),308(4),351(3). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 26th March 2026.

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNKP100008302025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

18-06-2025

Filing Number

780/2025

Filing Date

19-06-2025

Registration No

147/2025

Registration Date

19-06-2025

Court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthiramerur

Judge

1-District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

26th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

FIR Details

FIR Number

155

Police Station

VISHNU KANCHEE POLICE STATION

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 296(b),308(4),351(3)

Petitioner(s)

Sub Inspector of Police Salavakkam Police Station

Adv. Sub Inspector of Police Salavakkam Police Station

Respondent(s)

DIWAAKAR

AJITH

VENKATESAN

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

26-03-2026

Disposed

23-03-2026

Judgement

12-03-2026

Judgement

03-03-2026

Questioning

24-02-2026

Evidence

Final Orders / Judgements

26-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

Case Summary: CC 147/2025 The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate acquitted all three accused (Diwakar, Ajith, and Venkatesan) of charges under BNS Sections 296(b), 308(4), and 351(3) for allegedly abusing, threatening, and snatching ₹1,000 from a shop owner. The court found the prosecution's case failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, noting that key witnesses (complainant and seizure mahazar witnesses) turned hostile and compromised with the accused, while documentary evidence from the investigating officer alone was insufficient to establish the alleged crime. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

24-02-2026
Oral Evidence
casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC 147/2025 The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate acquitted all three accused (Diwakar, Ajith, and Venkatesan) of charges under BNS Sections 296(b), 308(4), and 351(3) for allegedly abusing, threatening, and snatching ₹1,000 from a shop owner. The court found the prosecution's case failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, noting that key witnesses (complainant and seizure mahazar witnesses) turned hostile and compromised with the accused, while documentary evidence from the investigating officer alone was insufficient to establish the alleged crime. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthiramerur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case