State Government Sub Inspector of police, Erumapatty PS vs PALANISAMY Advocate - Balakrishnan.P — 262/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 281,125(a). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 16th June 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNNM140005512025
e-Filing Number
30-11-2024
Filing Number
550/2025
Filing Date
18-Jul-2025
Registration No
262/2025
Registration Date
19-Sep-2025
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Sendamangalam
Judge
28-Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
Decision Date
16-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Last updated 16-Jul-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
177
Police Station
Erumapatty P.S.
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State Government Sub Inspector of police, Erumapatty PS (Police Station)
Adv. Additional Public Prosecutor
Respondent(s)
-
1.PALANISAMY Advocate - Balakrishnan.P
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Jun-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
Case Summary: CC No. 262/2025 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate Court of Sendamangalam acquitted the accused (Palanisamy) of charges under sections 281 and 125(a) (2 counts) BNS, finding that the prosecution failed to prove rash and negligent driving beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: While the court acknowledged an accident occurred causing injuries, critical weaknesses undermined the prosecution's case: the complainant's vehicle showed no damage despite the alleged impact, multiple eyewitnesses turned hostile, key mahazar witnesses recanted, and the injured witness (complainant's son) could not have observed the accused's driving from his pillion seat position. The court found the prosecution evidence insufficient and inconsistent to establish the necessary element of reckless driving. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Jun-2026
Disposed
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
15-Jun-2026
Judgement
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
09-Jun-2026
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
09-Jun-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
01-Jun-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
26-May-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
22-May-2026
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
22-May-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
21-May-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
19-May-2026
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
19-May-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
12-May-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
17-Apr-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
06-Apr-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
17-Mar-2026
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
17-Mar-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
05-Mar-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
24-Feb-2026
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
24-Feb-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
12-Feb-2026
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
12-Feb-2026
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
12-Feb-2026
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
22-Jan-2026
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
22-Jan-2026
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
07-Jan-2026
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
17-Dec-2025
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
10-Dec-2025
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
03-Dec-2025
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
26-Nov-2025
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
19-Nov-2025
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
12-Nov-2025
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
07-Nov-2025
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
22-Oct-2025
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
19-Sep-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
18-Jul-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 262/2025
Case Summary: CC No. 262/2025 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate Court of Sendamangalam acquitted the accused (Palanisamy) of charges under sections 281 and 125(a) (2 counts) BNS, finding that the prosecution failed to prove rash and negligent driving beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: While the court acknowledged an accident occurred causing injuries, critical weaknesses undermined the prosecution's case: the complainant's vehicle showed no damage despite the alleged impact, multiple eyewitnesses turned hostile, key mahazar witnesses recanted, and the injured witness (complainant's son) could not have observed the accused's driving from his pillion seat position. The court found the prosecution evidence insufficient and inconsistent to establish the necessary element of reckless driving. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts