Inspector of Police Checkanurani P.S. vs Rahul — 151/2022

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 279,304(A). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNMD180004752022

Filing Number

475/2022

Filing Date

11-Jul-2022

Registration No

151/2022

Registration Date

12-Jul-2022

Court

Judicial Magistrate No. II Court, Usilampatti

Judge

2-Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 23-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

61

Police Station

CHECKANURANI

Year

2022

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 279,304(A)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Inspector of Police Checkanurani P.S.

    Adv. APP2

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Rahul

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

    The Judicial Magistrate II, Usilampatti acquitted Rahul (age 20) of charges under IPC sections 279 (rash/negligent driving) and 304(A) (causing death by negligence) due to insufficient prosecution evidence. The court found that while a woman died from injuries sustained in a share-auto accident on 13/02/2022, the prosecution failed to prove the accused's identity as the driver or demonstrate rash/negligent driving, as the projected eyewitnesses did not actually witness the incident and hearsay evidence was inadmissible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  5. 12-Mar-2026

    Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF

  6. 12-Mar-2026

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  7. 10-Mar-2026

    Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF

  8. 10-Mar-2026

    Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF

  9. 10-Mar-2026

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  10. 05-Mar-2026

    Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF

  11. 05-Mar-2026

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  12. 04-Mar-2026

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  13. 10-Dec-2025

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  14. 14-Nov-2025

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  15. 04-Nov-2025

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  16. 12-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  17. 27-May-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  18. 11-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  19. 07-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  20. 29-Oct-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  21. 13-Aug-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  22. 22-May-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  23. 12-Feb-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  24. 27-Nov-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  25. 11-Oct-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  26. 16-Aug-2023

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  27. 14-Jun-2023

    Evidence

  28. 05-Apr-2023

    Evidence

  29. 25-Jan-2023

    Evidence

  30. 23-Nov-2022

    Evidence

  31. 12-Oct-2022

    Evidence

  32. 19-Sep-2022

    Evidence

  33. 22-Aug-2022

    Questioning

  34. 12-Jul-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  35. 11-Jul-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 151/2022

casestatus.in Summary

The Judicial Magistrate II, Usilampatti acquitted Rahul (age 20) of charges under IPC sections 279 (rash/negligent driving) and 304(A) (causing death by negligence) due to insufficient prosecution evidence. The court found that while a woman died from injuries sustained in a share-auto accident on 13/02/2022, the prosecution failed to prove the accused's identity as the driver or demonstrate rash/negligent driving, as the projected eyewitnesses did not actually witness the incident and hearsay evidence was inadmissible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case