Sub Inspector Of Police Thanthonimalai Ps vs Sivakumar Kishabai Advocate - N.VINOTHKUMAR — 368/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 379. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 09th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNKR020049542024
e-Filing Number
20-06-2024
Filing Number
4118/2024
Filing Date
28-Jun-2024
Registration No
368/2024
Registration Date
03-Jul-2024
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Karur
Judge
7-Judicial Magistrate No.I
Decision Date
09-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Last updated 18-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
239
Police Station
Pasupathipalayam P.S
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Sub Inspector Of Police Thanthonimalai Ps (Police Station)
Adv. APP GR II
Respondent(s)
-
1.Sivakumar Kishabai Advocate - N.VINOTHKUMAR
-
2.Sarathi Bheema
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
09-Mar-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
Case Summary Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate Court (Karur) acquitted the two accused (A1 Sivakumar and A2 Sarathi) of theft charges under IPC Section 379. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt despite four government witnesses being examined. The key evidence—an allegedly stolen Android phone (Samsung Galaxy A S 05)—lacked direct corroboration, and critical inconsistencies in witness testimonies, particularly regarding confessional statements and phone recovery details, created substantial reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
09-Mar-2026
Disposed
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
06-Mar-2026
Judgement
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
05-Mar-2026
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
02-Mar-2026
Copy of Oral Evidence / DepositionView PDF
-
02-Mar-2026
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
25-Feb-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
18-Feb-2026
Copy of Oral Evidence / DepositionView PDF
-
18-Feb-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
11-Feb-2026
Copy of Oral Evidence / DepositionView PDF
-
11-Feb-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
02-Feb-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
21-Jan-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
07-Jan-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
31-Dec-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
17-Dec-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
10-Dec-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
08-Dec-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
24-Nov-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
13-Oct-2025
Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
26-Aug-2025
Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
12-Aug-2025
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
02-Jul-2025
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
26-Jun-2025
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
18-Jun-2025
Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
24-Apr-2025
Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
27-Mar-2025
Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
17-Mar-2025
Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
03-Mar-2025
Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
24-Dec-2024
Trial
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
09-Dec-2024
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
12-Nov-2024
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
08-Oct-2024
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
24-Sep-2024
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
08-Aug-2024
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
11-Jul-2024
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate No.I
-
03-Jul-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
28-Jun-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 368/2024
Case Summary Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate Court (Karur) acquitted the two accused (A1 Sivakumar and A2 Sarathi) of theft charges under IPC Section 379. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt despite four government witnesses being examined. The key evidence—an allegedly stolen Android phone (Samsung Galaxy A S 05)—lacked direct corroboration, and critical inconsistencies in witness testimonies, particularly regarding confessional statements and phone recovery details, created substantial reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts