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
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
Petitioner(s)
Vengamedu Ps (Police Station), Si Of Police
Respondent(s)
VIGNESH
PRADEEP
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge
Disposed
Judgement
Trial
Trial
Trial
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 09-03-2026 | Trial | |
| 07-03-2026 | Trial | |
| 17-02-2026 | Trial |
Final Orders / Judgements
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
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts