Thiruvadanai Police Station vs Boominathan — 243/2025

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),323. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 03rd June 2026.

Case disposed

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNRM170015372025

e-Filing Number

11-08-2025

Filing Number

1518/2025

Filing Date

14-Aug-2025

Registration No

243/2025

Registration Date

21-Aug-2025

Court

Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvadanai

Judge

2-Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

03-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 16-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

287

Police Station

THIRUVADANAI P.S

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),323
Tn Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002 Section 4

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Thiruvadanai Police Station

    Adv. Inspector of Police Thiruvadanai PS

  2. 2.Marimuthu

    Adv. Inspector of Police Thiruvadanai PS

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Boominathan

  2. 2.Muthumanickam(Manickam)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 03-Jun-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: CC No. 243/2025 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate Court in Thiruvadanai acquitted both accused, Boominathan and Muthumanickam, of charges under IPC sections 294(b) (3 counts), 323, and the TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The accused were released under CrPC section 248(1), and their bail bonds were cancelled. Key Reasoning: Despite allegations that the two accused assaulted the complainant with a wooden stick, causing injuries, the court found critical weaknesses in the prosecution's case. Multiple government witnesses gave contradictory statements—some claimed to have no knowledge of the incident, while the victim herself testified inconsistently about how injuries occurred. The court determined the prosecution witnesses provided false or unreliable evidence that undermined the case, making conviction impossible under the reasonable doubt standard. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 03-Jun-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate

  4. 26-May-2026

    Judgement

    Judicial Magistrate

  5. 22-May-2026

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate

  6. 18-May-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  7. 18-May-2026

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate

  8. 20-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  9. 02-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  10. 09-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  11. 02-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  12. 05-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  13. 29-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  14. 11-Dec-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  15. 11-Dec-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  16. 11-Dec-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  17. 11-Dec-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  18. 11-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate

  19. 05-Dec-2025

    Trial

    Judicial Magistrate

  20. 13-Nov-2025

    Framing of Charges

    Judicial Magistrate

  21. 29-Sep-2025

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate

  22. 21-Aug-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  23. 14-Aug-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 243/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC No. 243/2025 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate Court in Thiruvadanai acquitted both accused, Boominathan and Muthumanickam, of charges under IPC sections 294(b) (3 counts), 323, and the TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The accused were released under CrPC section 248(1), and their bail bonds were cancelled. Key Reasoning: Despite allegations that the two accused assaulted the complainant with a wooden stick, causing injuries, the court found critical weaknesses in the prosecution's case. Multiple government witnesses gave contradictory statements—some claimed to have no knowledge of the incident, while the victim herself testified inconsistently about how injuries occurred. The court determined the prosecution witnesses provided false or unreliable evidence that undermined the case, making conviction impossible under the reasonable doubt standard. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case