Sub-Inspector of Police Vikkiramangalam P.S vs Soundrapandi — 576/2022

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),323,324,506(ii). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNMD180014012022

Filing Number

1401/2022

Filing Date

23-Nov-2022

Registration No

576/2022

Registration Date

14-Dec-2022

Court

Judicial Magistrate No. II Court, Usilampatti

Judge

2-Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 23-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

119

Police Station

VIKKIRAMANGALAM

Year

2022

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),323,324,506(ii)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sub-Inspector of Police Vikkiramangalam P.S

    Adv. APP 2

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Soundrapandi

  2. 2.Andichamy

  3. 3.Peyandi

  4. 4.Sadaiyandi

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

    Summary: The Judicial Magistrate Court at Usilampatti acquitted all four accused (Soundrapandi, Andichamy, Peyandi, and Sadayandi) of charges under IPC sections 294(b), 323, 324, and 506(2) for an alleged assault on September 22, 2022. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as the two key eyewitnesses (PW1 and PW2) turned hostile and claimed no knowledge of the incident, while the third witness (PW3) provided only procedural testimony without substantive evidence. Despite medical evidence of wounds, the doctors were not examined, and without credible ocular testimony, the court could not establish the accused's involvement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF

  5. 12-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  6. 11-Mar-2026

    Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF

  7. 11-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  8. 07-Jan-2026

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  9. 29-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  10. 06-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  11. 04-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  12. 28-May-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  13. 05-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  14. 18-Dec-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  15. 20-Nov-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  16. 04-Sep-2024

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  17. 04-Jun-2024

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  18. 28-May-2024

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  19. 22-Mar-2024

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  20. 05-Jan-2024

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  21. 24-Nov-2023

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  22. 13-Oct-2023

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  23. 08-Sep-2023

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  24. 21-Jul-2023

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  25. 09-Jun-2023

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate No II, Usilampatti.

  26. 28-Apr-2023

    Issue of Service

  27. 24-Mar-2023

    Issue of Service

  28. 17-Feb-2023

    Issue of Service

  29. 06-Feb-2023

    Issue of Service

  30. 14-Dec-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  31. 23-Nov-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 576/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Judicial Magistrate Court at Usilampatti acquitted all four accused (Soundrapandi, Andichamy, Peyandi, and Sadayandi) of charges under IPC sections 294(b), 323, 324, and 506(2) for an alleged assault on September 22, 2022. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as the two key eyewitnesses (PW1 and PW2) turned hostile and claimed no knowledge of the incident, while the third witness (PW3) provided only procedural testimony without substantive evidence. Despite medical evidence of wounds, the doctors were not examined, and without credible ocular testimony, the court could not establish the accused's involvement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case