State Government Sub Inspector Of Police Erumapatty PS vs Duraimurugan Advocate - Mahendran.R — 33/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 26th May 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNNM140007082024
e-Filing Number
21-03-2024
Filing Number
708/2024
Filing Date
01-Apr-2024
Registration No
33/2024
Registration Date
02-Apr-2024
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Sendamangalam
Judge
28-Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
Decision Date
26-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Last updated 16-Jul-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
390
Police Station
Erumapatty P.S.
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State Government Sub Inspector Of Police Erumapatty PS (Police Station)
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.Duraimurugan Advocate - Mahendran.R
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
26-May-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
Case Summary: CC 33/2024 Court: Judicial Magistrate Court, Sendamangalam Judgment Date: 26 May 2026 Case Number: 33/2024 (Crime No. 390/2023) Decision The court acquitted the accused (Duraimurugan alias Murugan) of all charges under IPC sections 294(b) (obscene words), 326 (causing grievous hurt), and 506(ii) (criminal intimidation). The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and applied the benefit of doubt in favor of the accused under CrPC section 248(1). Key Reasoning The court identified critical inconsistencies in prosecution evidence, particularly in the victim witness's testimony which contradicted itself on who inflicted injuries. Multiple other prosecution witnesses admitted having no knowledge of the incident, rendering them unreliable. The court noted pre-existing animosity between the accused and complainant, raising reasonable doubt about the veracity of charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
26-May-2026
Disposed
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
25-May-2026
Judgement
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
22-May-2026
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
22-May-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
21-May-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
20-May-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
15-May-2026
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
15-May-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
11-May-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
28-Apr-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
17-Apr-2026
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
17-Apr-2026
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
17-Apr-2026
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
17-Apr-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
09-Apr-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
17-Mar-2026
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
17-Mar-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
07-Mar-2026
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
07-Mar-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
26-Feb-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
16-Feb-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
09-Feb-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
02-Feb-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
20-Jan-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
18-Dec-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
09-Dec-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
04-Dec-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
13-Nov-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
06-Nov-2025
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
06-Nov-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
28-Oct-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
09-Oct-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
23-Sep-2025
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
23-Sep-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
09-Sep-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
28-Aug-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
12-Aug-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
29-Jul-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
15-Jul-2025
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
15-Jul-2025
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
17-Jun-2025
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
13-May-2025
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
24-Apr-2025
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
04-Mar-2025
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
07-Feb-2025
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
08-Jan-2025
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
05-Dec-2024
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
29-Oct-2024
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
24-Sep-2024
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
10-Sep-2024
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
10-Sep-2024
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
10-Sep-2024
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
10-Sep-2024
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
10-Sep-2024
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
21-Aug-2024
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
30-Jul-2024
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
15-Jul-2024
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
25-Jun-2024
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
25-Jun-2024
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
25-Jun-2024
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
25-Jun-2024
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
25-Jun-2024
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
10-Jun-2024
Service Pending
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
03-Jun-2024
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate, Sendamangalam
-
02-Apr-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
01-Apr-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 33/2024
Case Summary: CC 33/2024 Court: Judicial Magistrate Court, Sendamangalam Judgment Date: 26 May 2026 Case Number: 33/2024 (Crime No. 390/2023) Decision The court acquitted the accused (Duraimurugan alias Murugan) of all charges under IPC sections 294(b) (obscene words), 326 (causing grievous hurt), and 506(ii) (criminal intimidation). The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and applied the benefit of doubt in favor of the accused under CrPC section 248(1). Key Reasoning The court identified critical inconsistencies in prosecution evidence, particularly in the victim witness's testimony which contradicted itself on who inflicted injuries. Multiple other prosecution witnesses admitted having no knowledge of the incident, rendering them unreliable. The court noted pre-existing animosity between the accused and complainant, raising reasonable doubt about the veracity of charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts