Inspector of Police vs Manoharan @ Mahalingam — 100055/2017
Case under Criminal Law Amendment Act 1908 Section 136,294(b). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 17th March 2026.
SC - Sessions Case
CNR: TNSV050003572017
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
100055/2017
Filing Date
12-06-2017
Registration No
100055/2017
Registration Date
03-07-2017
Court
Sub Court, Devakottai
Judge
1-Sub Judge , Devakottai
Decision Date
17th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Inspector of Police
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Manoharan @ Mahalingam
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Sub Judge , Devakottai
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Judgement
Judgement
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 13-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 10-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 06-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 02-03-2026 | Judgement |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Assistant Sessions Court in Devakottai acquitted the defendant (Madeakaaran alias Malingam) of charges under IPC Sections 436, 294(b), and 506(2), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt despite witness testimonies. The court held that while witnesses testified to the defendant's presence at the scene and threats made, the evidence was insufficient to conclusively establish that the defendant set fire to the agricultural hut, lacked corroborating documentary evidence, and contained contradictions regarding ownership and timeline of the property burning incident. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The Assistant Sessions Court in Devakottai acquitted the defendant (Madeakaaran alias Malingam) of charges under IPC Sections 436, 294(b), and 506(2), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt despite witness testimonies. The court held that while witnesses testified to the defendant's presence at the scene and threats made, the evidence was insufficient to conclusively establish that the defendant set fire to the agricultural hut, lacked corroborating documentary evidence, and contained contradictions regarding ownership and timeline of the property burning incident. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts