Kalikudi P.S. vs Pandi — 55/2025

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),323,506(1). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 15th April 2026.

Case disposed

SC - Sessions Case

CNR: TNMD010004112025

Filing Number

342/2025

Filing Date

20-Jan-2025

Registration No

55/2025

Registration Date

20-Jan-2025

Court

Principal District Court, Madurai

Judge

10-IV Additional District and sessions Judge

Decision Date

15-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

91

Police Station

Kallikudi Police Station

Year

2017

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),323,506(1)
Tn Public Property (Prvnt.of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992 Section 3(1)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Kalikudi P.S.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Pandi

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Apr-2026

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

    Summary of Case 55/2025 The Fourth Additional District Sessions Court, Madurai acquitted the accused Pandi of all charges under IPC sections 294(b), 323, 506(ii), and section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act. The court found that despite prosecution testimony, the evidence was insufficient to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt—specifically, that the accused used abusive language, assaulted witnesses, and damaged a vehicle on 4 April 2017. The court determined that key prosecution witnesses provided inconsistent statements, and the sole eyewitness lacked credibility, warranting acquittal under the benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    IV Additional District and sessions Judge

  4. 09-Apr-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  5. 09-Apr-2026

    Questioning

    IV Additional District and sessions Judge

  6. 30-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    IV Additional District and sessions Judge

  7. 24-Mar-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  8. 24-Mar-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  9. 24-Mar-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  10. 24-Mar-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  11. 24-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    IV Additional District and sessions Judge

  12. 16-Mar-2026

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    IV Additional District and sessions Judge

  13. 23-Feb-2026

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    IV Additional District and sessions Judge

  14. 17-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    IV Additional District and sessions Judge

  15. 02-Feb-2026

    Framing of Charges

    IV Additional District and sessions Judge

  16. 28-Jan-2026

    Framing of Charges

    IV Additional District and sessions Judge

  17. 12-Jan-2026

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    IV Additional District and sessions Judge

  18. 28-Oct-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    IV Additional District and sessions Judge

  19. 28-Aug-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    IV Additional District and sessions Judge

  20. 14-Aug-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    IV Additional District and sessions Judge

  21. 06-Aug-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  22. 08-Jul-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  23. 03-Jun-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  24. 27-Mar-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  25. 20-Feb-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  26. 20-Jan-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  27. 20-Jan-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 55/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 55/2025 The Fourth Additional District Sessions Court, Madurai acquitted the accused Pandi of all charges under IPC sections 294(b), 323, 506(ii), and section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act. The court found that despite prosecution testimony, the evidence was insufficient to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt—specifically, that the accused used abusive language, assaulted witnesses, and damaged a vehicle on 4 April 2017. The court determined that key prosecution witnesses provided inconsistent statements, and the sole eyewitness lacked credibility, warranting acquittal under the benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case