SI of Police Uthappanaickanur PS vs Eswaran and another — 783/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 296(b), 115(2), 351(1). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 12th March 2026.
STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case
CNR: TNMD180027352025
e-Filing Number
18-11-2025
Filing Number
2728/2025
Filing Date
18-11-2025
Registration No
783/2025
Registration Date
18-11-2025
Court
Judicial Magistrate No. II Court, Usilampatti
Judge
2-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO II, USILAMPATTI.
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
149
Police Station
UTHAPANAICKANUR
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SI of Police Uthappanaickanur PS (Police Station)
Respondent(s)
Eswaran and another
Vigneshkumar
Hearing History
Judge: 2-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO II, USILAMPATTI.
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Trial
Trial
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 06-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 05-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 04-03-2026 | Trial |
| 02-03-2026 | Trial |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court II, Usilampatti acquitted both accused (Eswaran and Vigneshkumar) of charges under BNS sections 296(b), 115(2), and 351(2) for alleged assault and criminal intimidation. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the complainant and eyewitnesses turned hostile, testified about a compromise, and provided exaggerated facts, while procedural evidence alone from the investigating officer could not establish guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court II, Usilampatti acquitted both accused (Eswaran and Vigneshkumar) of charges under BNS sections 296(b), 115(2), and 351(2) for alleged assault and criminal intimidation. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the complainant and eyewitnesses turned hostile, testified about a compromise, and provided exaggerated facts, while procedural evidence alone from the investigating officer could not establish guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts