Koodakovil P.S vs Ayyanan — 128/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 296(b),118(1),351(3). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 13th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNMD140004752025
e-Filing Number
16-02-2025
Filing Number
475/2025
Filing Date
28-02-2025
Registration No
128/2025
Registration Date
04-03-2025
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Thirumangalam
Judge
1-Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
171
Police Station
KOODAKOVIL
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Koodakovil P.S
Respondent(s)
Ayyanan
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam
Disposed
Judgement
Questioning
Evidence
Questioning
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 11-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 02-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 03-11-2025 | Questioning |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Tirumangalam acquitted the accused Ayyanan of charges under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Hartal and Bandh Act. The court found that while the prosecution alleged the accused assaulted the complainant with a sickle and made death threats on 13 December 2024, the key eyewitnesses (complainant and incident witness) failed to testify in support of the prosecution case, leaving insufficient direct evidence to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Applying the benefit of doubt in favor of the accused, the court discharged him under Section 271(1) BNSS. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Tirumangalam acquitted the accused Ayyanan of charges under Sections 296(b), 118(1), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Hartal and Bandh Act. The court found that while the prosecution alleged the accused assaulted the complainant with a sickle and made death threats on 13 December 2024, the key eyewitnesses (complainant and incident witness) failed to testify in support of the prosecution case, leaving insufficient direct evidence to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Applying the benefit of doubt in favor of the accused, the court discharged him under Section 271(1) BNSS. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts