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

Case disposed

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

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 296(b),118(1),351(3)
TN PROHIBITION OF HARASSMENT OF WOMAN ACT, 2002 Section 4

Petitioner(s)

Koodakovil P.S

Respondent(s)

Ayyanan

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam

13-03-2026

Disposed

12-03-2026

Judgement

11-03-2026

Questioning

02-03-2026

Evidence

03-11-2025

Questioning

Final Orders / Judgements

13-03-2026
Copy of Judgment/Order

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

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Judicial Magistrate Court, Thirumangalam All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case