Si of police Town ps vs ARAVINTHAKUMAR ARAVINTHAN Advocate - GOWRISHANKAR S — 58/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 296(b),115(2),351(3),118(2)-BNS. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 09th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNRP090002022025
e-Filing Number
19-12-2024
Filing Number
202/2025
Filing Date
24-01-2025
Registration No
58/2025
Registration Date
09-04-2025
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court No. I, Arakkonam
Judge
5-Judicial Magistrate No.I, Arakkonam
Decision Date
09th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
537
Police Station
Arakkonam Town
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Si of police Town ps (Police Station)
Adv. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE AKM TN PS
Respondent(s)
ARAVINTHAKUMAR ARAVINTHAN Advocate - GOWRISHANKAR S
Hearing History
Judge: 5-Judicial Magistrate No.I, Arakkonam
Disposed
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 27-02-2026 | Evidence | |
| 23-02-2026 | Evidence | |
| 13-02-2026 | Evidence | |
| 06-02-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary Case: Criminal Case No. 58/2025, Arakkonam Judicial Magistrate Court Decision: The court acquitted both accused (Aravind Kumar and Sarvin) of charges under BNS sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(2), and 351(3) for allegedly assaulting and threatening victims on 28.10.2024. The court found that the prosecution failed to adequately prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, particularly noting that key prosecution witnesses (PW1 and PW2) contradicted the government's case narrative, and the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt with certainty. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary Case: Criminal Case No. 58/2025, Arakkonam Judicial Magistrate Court Decision: The court acquitted both accused (Aravind Kumar and Sarvin) of charges under BNS sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(2), and 351(3) for allegedly assaulting and threatening victims on 28.10.2024. The court found that the prosecution failed to adequately prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, particularly noting that key prosecution witnesses (PW1 and PW2) contradicted the government's case narrative, and the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt with certainty. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts