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.

Case disposed

STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case

CNR: TNSV190070192024

e-Filing Number

26-09-2024

Filing Number

7018/2024

Filing Date

18-Oct-2024

Registration No

41/2025

Registration Date

26-Feb-2025

Court

Judicial Magistrate Court, Karaikudi

Judge

5-Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi

Decision Date

25-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 29-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

339

Police Station

Sakkottai Police Station

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 279, 338

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.INSPECTOR OF POLICE SAKKOTTAI P.S

    Adv. si of police si of police

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.AROCKIYA SELVAKUMAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    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.

  3. 25-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi

  4. 24-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi

  5. 23-Mar-2026

    Copy of depositionView PDF

  6. 23-Mar-2026

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi

  7. 17-Mar-2026

    Copy of depositionView PDF

  8. 17-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi

  9. 12-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi

  10. 09-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi

  11. 06-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi

  12. 02-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi

  13. 24-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi

  14. 23-Feb-2026

    Copy of depositionView PDF

  15. 23-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi

  16. 17-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi

  17. 11-Feb-2026

    Copy of depositionView PDF

  18. 11-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi

  19. 10-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi

  20. 02-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi

  21. 10-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi

  22. 31-Oct-2025

    Questioning

    Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi

  23. 26-Jun-2025

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi

  24. 13-May-2025

    Issue of Service

    Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi

  25. 26-Feb-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  26. 18-Oct-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 41/2025

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case