INSPECTOR OF POLICE SAKKOTTAI P.S vs AROCKIYA SELVAKUMAR — 41/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 279, 338. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 25th March 2026.
STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case
CNR: TNSV190070192024
e-Filing Number
26-09-2024
Filing Number
7018/2024
Filing Date
18-10-2024
Registration No
41/2025
Registration Date
26-02-2025
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Karaikudi
Judge
5-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
Decision Date
25th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
339
Police Station
Sakkottai Police Station
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
INSPECTOR OF POLICE SAKKOTTAI P.S
Adv. si of police si of police
Respondent(s)
AROCKIYA SELVAKUMAR
Hearing History
Judge: 5-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi
Disposed
Judgement
Questioning
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 24-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 23-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 17-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 12-03-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: S.T.C. No. 41/2025 The Judicial Magistrate acquitted accused Arockiya Selvakumar of charges under IPC Sections 279 (rash driving) and 338 (causing hurt by act endangering life), finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps: the complainant and eyewitnesses could not identify the accused; key eyewitnesses turned hostile and denied knowing who drove the offending vehicle; mahazar witnesses admitted signing documents without understanding their contents; and the injured person died before trial, eliminating direct testimony. Medical evidence confirmed an accident occurred but could not establish the accused's identity as the driver or prove rash/negligent conduct. The court held that suspicion cannot replace proof in criminal cases. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: S.T.C. No. 41/2025 The Judicial Magistrate acquitted accused Arockiya Selvakumar of charges under IPC Sections 279 (rash driving) and 338 (causing hurt by act endangering life), finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps: the complainant and eyewitnesses could not identify the accused; key eyewitnesses turned hostile and denied knowing who drove the offending vehicle; mahazar witnesses admitted signing documents without understanding their contents; and the injured person died before trial, eliminating direct testimony. Medical evidence confirmed an accident occurred but could not establish the accused's identity as the driver or prove rash/negligent conduct. The court held that suspicion cannot replace proof in criminal cases. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts