SIP Kamuthi PS vs Muthuramalingam Advocate - Mr.N.Sarathi — 208/2023

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),324,506(2). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 26th May 2026.

Case disposed

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNRM070049202023

Filing Number

4898/2023

Filing Date

18-Jul-2023

Registration No

208/2023

Registration Date

19-Jul-2023

Court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kamudhi

Judge

1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

26-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 16-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),324,506(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SIP (Sub-Inspector of Police) Kamuthi PS (Police Station)

    Adv. P.M.Muniandi, APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Muthuramalingam Advocate - Mr.N.Sarathi

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 26-May-2026

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

    Summary of Case 208/2023 Court Decision: The District Magistrate (Criminal) Court at Kamuthi acquitted the accused Muthuramalingam of charges under IPC Sections 294(b), 324, and 506(2), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The accused was discharged under Section 248(1) of the CrPC and released immediately; his bail bond was cancelled. Key Reasoning: The court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient. The two eyewitnesses (PW1 and PW2) provided contradictory testimonies—one claimed no injury occurred while the other was not present at the incident. Only the investigating officer's testimony remained, which alone could not establish the accused's guilt beyond doubt. The court applied the principle of benefit of doubt in the accused's favor. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 26-May-2026

    Disposed

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  4. 25-May-2026

    Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF

  5. 25-May-2026

    Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF

  6. 25-May-2026

    Copy of Oral Evidence/DepositionView PDF

  7. 25-May-2026

    Questioning

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  8. 16-Mar-2026

    Trial

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  9. 12-Jan-2026

    Trial

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  10. 03-Nov-2025

    Trial

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  11. 29-Sep-2025

    Trial

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  12. 16-Jul-2025

    Trial

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  13. 09-Apr-2025

    Trial

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  14. 08-Nov-2024

    Trial

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  15. 13-May-2024

    Trial

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  16. 05-Feb-2024

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  17. 02-Feb-2024

    Framing of Charges

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  18. 28-Dec-2023

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  19. 28-Nov-2023

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  20. 20-Oct-2023

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  21. 20-Sep-2023

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  22. 17-Aug-2023

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  23. 19-Jul-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  24. 18-Jul-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 208/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 208/2023 Court Decision: The District Magistrate (Criminal) Court at Kamuthi acquitted the accused Muthuramalingam of charges under IPC Sections 294(b), 324, and 506(2), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The accused was discharged under Section 248(1) of the CrPC and released immediately; his bail bond was cancelled. Key Reasoning: The court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient. The two eyewitnesses (PW1 and PW2) provided contradictory testimonies—one claimed no injury occurred while the other was not present at the incident. Only the investigating officer's testimony remained, which alone could not establish the accused's guilt beyond doubt. The court applied the principle of benefit of doubt in the accused's favor. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case