Vengamedu Ps, Si Of Police vs VIGNESH — 67/2025

Case under Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 Section 3(1). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 12th March 2026.

SC - Sessions Case

CNR: TNKR010019512025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

15-04-2025

Filing Number

1278/2025

Filing Date

24-04-2025

Registration No

67/2025

Registration Date

19-06-2025

Court

Principal District Court, Karur

Judge

1-District Judge

Decision Date

12th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

FIR Details

FIR Number

401

Police Station

Vengamedu P.S

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO PUBLIC PROPERTY ACT, 1984 Section 3(1)

Petitioner(s)

Vengamedu Ps (Police Station), Si Of Police

Respondent(s)

VIGNESH

PRADEEP

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District Judge

12-03-2026

Disposed

10-03-2026

Judgement

09-03-2026

Trial

07-03-2026

Trial

17-02-2026

Trial

Final Orders / Judgements

12-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

Court Decision Summary The District & Sessions Judge, Karur acquitted accused Vignesh and Pradeep of charges under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 for allegedly damaging an ATM display panel on 28.10.2023. The court found critical evidentiary gaps: no eyewitnesses to the crime, an unexplained 15-hour delay in filing the complaint, and four crucial prosecution witnesses (PW4-PW7) turning hostile, undermining the seizure and confessional evidence. The court concluded the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, canceling bail bonds and ordering destruction of seized materials after the appeal period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The District & Sessions Judge, Karur acquitted accused Vignesh and Pradeep of charges under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 for allegedly damaging an ATM display panel on 28.10.2023. The court found critical evidentiary gaps: no eyewitnesses to the crime, an unexplained 15-hour delay in filing the complaint, and four crucial prosecution witnesses (PW4-PW7) turning hostile, undermining the seizure and confessional evidence. The court concluded the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, canceling bail bonds and ordering destruction of seized materials after the appeal period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Principal District Court, Karur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case