SI OF POLICE, DVK TALUK PS. CR.NO.226-2024. vs MUTHUMANI — 135/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 296(b),115(2). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 19th May 2026.
STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case
CNR: TNSV070006962025
e-Filing Number
01-03-2025
Filing Number
695/2025
Filing Date
03-03-2025
Registration No
135/2025
Registration Date
18-03-2025
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Devakkottai
Judge
3-Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
19th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
226
Police Station
Devakottai Taluk Police Station
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SI OF POLICE, DVK TALUK PS (Police Station). CR.NO.226-2024.
Adv. INSPECTOR OF POLICE DEVAKOTTAI TALUK PS
Respondent(s)
MUTHUMANI
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 19-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 18-05-2026 | Judgement |
| 11-05-2026 | Judgement |
| 05-05-2026 | Evidence |
| 27-04-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: S.T.C. No. 135/2025 The Judicial Magistrate acquitted defendant Muthumani of charges under IPC Sections 296(b) and 115(2), finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Despite the victim's testimony alleging that Muthumani used abusive language and struck him with a knife on September 21, 2024, corroborating witness testimony was inconsistent—one witness claimed to have observed the assault directly but another witness contradicted key details about the timing and nature of injuries, undermining the prosecution's case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: S.T.C. No. 135/2025 The Judicial Magistrate acquitted defendant Muthumani of charges under IPC Sections 296(b) and 115(2), finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Despite the victim's testimony alleging that Muthumani used abusive language and struck him with a knife on September 21, 2024, corroborating witness testimony was inconsistent—one witness claimed to have observed the assault directly but another witness contradicted key details about the timing and nature of injuries, undermining the prosecution's case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts