Thirumangalam Town Police station vs Vigneshwaran — 253/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 296(b),115(2),118(1),351(3). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 17th April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNMD140010082025

e-Filing Number

02-04-2025

Filing Number

1008/2025

Filing Date

30-Apr-2025

Registration No

253/2025

Registration Date

30-Apr-2025

Court

Judicial Magistrate Court, Thirumangalam

Judge

1-Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam

Decision Date

17-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

86

Police Station

THIRUMANGALAM TOWN

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 296(b),115(2),118(1),351(3)
Tn Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002 Section 4

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Thirumangalam Town Police station

    Adv. Inspector of Police ThirumangalamTown PS

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Vigneshwaran

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Apr-2026

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

    The Thirumangalam Town Police Station filed FIR No. 86/2025 against Vigneshwaran, accusing him of assaulting the complainant Mariyammaal on 15.03.2025 at 8:00 PM, causing injury with a knife to her elbow and making death threats against her and her husband, under IPC Sections 296(b), 118(1), 351(3) and TNPHW Act Section 4. The court found that while the complainant (PW1) testified she fell during a scuffle, eyewitnesses (PW2 and PW3) had no direct knowledge of the incident. The court noted the absence of direct testimony connecting the accused to the alleged crimes and found reasonable doubts in the prosecution's case. Despite documentary evidence presented through the police officer (PW4), the lack of credible eyewitness testimony supporting the assault allegations created insufficient grounds for conviction. The court acquitted Vigneshwaran under Section 271(1) BNSS, holding that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused where evidence fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam

  4. 16-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam

  5. 08-Apr-2026

    Appearance

    Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam

  6. 07-Apr-2026

    Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF

  7. 07-Apr-2026

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam

  8. 01-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam

  9. 24-Mar-2026

    Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF

  10. 24-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam

  11. 16-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam

  12. 10-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam

  13. 27-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam

  14. 13-Oct-2025

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam

  15. 02-Jul-2025

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam

  16. 30-Apr-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  17. 30-Apr-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 253/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Thirumangalam Town Police Station filed FIR No. 86/2025 against Vigneshwaran, accusing him of assaulting the complainant Mariyammaal on 15.03.2025 at 8:00 PM, causing injury with a knife to her elbow and making death threats against her and her husband, under IPC Sections 296(b), 118(1), 351(3) and TNPHW Act Section 4. The court found that while the complainant (PW1) testified she fell during a scuffle, eyewitnesses (PW2 and PW3) had no direct knowledge of the incident. The court noted the absence of direct testimony connecting the accused to the alleged crimes and found reasonable doubts in the prosecution's case. Despite documentary evidence presented through the police officer (PW4), the lack of credible eyewitness testimony supporting the assault allegations created insufficient grounds for conviction. The court acquitted Vigneshwaran under Section 271(1) BNSS, holding that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused where evidence fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case