The Inspector of Police, Banavaram vs RAMAKRISHNAMOORTHI — 62/2025

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 366,363,376(2)(n). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 08th April 2026.

Case disposed

SPL.SC - Special Sessions Case

CNR: TNRP010003862025

e-Filing Number

06-02-2025

Filing Number

284/2025

Filing Date

10-Feb-2025

Registration No

62/2025

Registration Date

10-Mar-2025

Court

Principal District Court, Ranipet

Judge

1-Principal District Judge, Ranipet

Decision Date

08-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 18-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

109

Police Station

BANAVARAM

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 366,363,376(2)(n)
Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 5(l),6(1)
Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006 Section 9

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.The Inspector of Police, Banavaram

    Adv. ASST PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAMAKRISHNAMOORTHI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-Apr-2026

    Copy of Judgment/OrderView PDF

    Court Decision Summary The court acquitted the 22-year-old defendant of all charges under IPC sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), POCSO Act sections 5(1) r/w 6(1), and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act section 9. The judge found that while the prosecution alleged the defendant abducted and sexually assaulted a minor girl, then married her, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the girl was below 18 years old at the time of the alleged offenses—a critical element for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District Judge, Ranipet

  4. 24-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Principal District Judge, Ranipet

  5. 17-Mar-2026

    Questioning

    Principal District Judge, Ranipet

  6. 13-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Ranipet

  7. 11-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Ranipet

  8. 10-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Ranipet

  9. 09-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Ranipet

  10. 04-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Ranipet

  11. 27-Feb-2026

    Issue of Service

    Principal District Judge, Ranipet

  12. 24-Feb-2026

    Issue of Service

    Principal District Judge, Ranipet

  13. 12-Feb-2026

    Issue of Service

    Principal District Judge, Ranipet

  14. 04-Feb-2026

    Issue of Service

    Principal District Judge, Ranipet

  15. 21-Jan-2026

    Issue of Service

    Principal District Judge, Ranipet

  16. 05-Jan-2026

    Issue of Service

    Principal District Judge, Ranipet

  17. 17-Dec-2025

    Issue of Service

    Principal District Judge, Ranipet

  18. 08-Dec-2025

    Issue of Service

    Principal District Judge, Ranipet

  19. 02-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Ranipet

  20. 12-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Ranipet

  21. 10-Nov-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Judge, Ranipet

  22. 20-Sep-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Judge, Ranipet

  23. 28-Aug-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Judge, Ranipet

  24. 11-Aug-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Judge, Ranipet

  25. 23-Jul-2025

    Framing of Charges

    Principal District Judge, Ranipet

  26. 19-Jun-2025

    Framing of Charges

    Principal District Judge, Ranipet

  27. 13-Jun-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Principal District Judge, Ranipet

  28. 29-Apr-2025

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    Principal District Judge, Ranipet

  29. 09-Apr-2025

    Vakalat / Memo of Appearance

    Principal District Judge, Ranipet

  30. 10-Mar-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  31. 10-Feb-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 62/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The court acquitted the 22-year-old defendant of all charges under IPC sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), POCSO Act sections 5(1) r/w 6(1), and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act section 9. The judge found that while the prosecution alleged the defendant abducted and sexually assaulted a minor girl, then married her, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the girl was below 18 years old at the time of the alleged offenses—a critical element for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case