Sub Inspector of police, Vaitheeswarakoil vs Radhakrishnan — 266/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),324,506 (2). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 27th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNMY080053372024
e-Filing Number
23-11-2024
Filing Number
5329/2024
Filing Date
23-11-2024
Registration No
266/2024
Registration Date
23-11-2024
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Sirkali
Judge
1-Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
27th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
234
Police Station
Vaitheeswarankoil Police Station
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sub Inspector of police, Vaitheeswarakoil
Adv. Inspector of police vaitheeswarankoil
Respondent(s)
Radhakrishnan
Rajkumar
Ramesh
Kasinathan
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Questioning
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 26-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 12-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 04-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 25-02-2026 | Questioning |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: CC.No.266/2024 The Judicial Magistrate Court, Sirkali acquitted all four defendants (Radhakrishnan, Rajkumar, Ramesh, and Kashinathan) of charges under IPC sections 294(b), 324, and 506(ii), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that key prosecution witnesses (Government Witnesses 1 and 2) gave contradictory testimony inconsistent with the case, while relying primarily on the testimony of Government Witness 3 (a police officer) was insufficient to establish guilt, particularly given the complainant's death before trial and absence of corroborating eyewitness evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: CC.No.266/2024 The Judicial Magistrate Court, Sirkali acquitted all four defendants (Radhakrishnan, Rajkumar, Ramesh, and Kashinathan) of charges under IPC sections 294(b), 324, and 506(ii), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that key prosecution witnesses (Government Witnesses 1 and 2) gave contradictory testimony inconsistent with the case, while relying primarily on the testimony of Government Witness 3 (a police officer) was insufficient to establish guilt, particularly given the complainant's death before trial and absence of corroborating eyewitness evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts