sub inspector of police palanichettypatti vs kannan — 100/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 329(4),296(b),118(1),351(3),118(2). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 10th April 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTH020007742025
e-Filing Number
28-01-2025
Filing Number
749/2025
Filing Date
21-02-2025
Registration No
100/2025
Registration Date
24-02-2025
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Theni
Judge
5-Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
10th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
446
Police Station
Palanichettipatty P.S.
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
sub inspector of police palanichettypatti
Adv. Sub Inspector of Police Palanichettipatti Police Station
Respondent(s)
kannan
Hearing History
Judge: 5-Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Judgement
Questioning
Trial
Trial
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 07-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 01-04-2026 | Questioning |
| 25-03-2026 | Trial |
| 23-03-2026 | Trial |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: CC No. 100/2025 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate acquitted all four accused (Kannan, Pathikaali, Kirukumani, and Supp) of charges under BNS Sections 329(4), 296(b), 118(1), 351(3), and 118(2), finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The court determined that two key prosecution witnesses (complainant and witness-2) gave contradictory testimony, claiming no prior dispute existed despite the FIR alleging they trespassed the complainant's home and assaulted him with iron rods and stones on November 1, 2024. The investigating officer's testimony alone was insufficient to establish the charges, particularly given the credibility issues with other witnesses. Consequently, the accused were discharged under BNS Section 271(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: CC No. 100/2025 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate acquitted all four accused (Kannan, Pathikaali, Kirukumani, and Supp) of charges under BNS Sections 329(4), 296(b), 118(1), 351(3), and 118(2), finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The court determined that two key prosecution witnesses (complainant and witness-2) gave contradictory testimony, claiming no prior dispute existed despite the FIR alleging they trespassed the complainant's home and assaulted him with iron rods and stones on November 1, 2024. The investigating officer's testimony alone was insufficient to establish the charges, particularly given the credibility issues with other witnesses. Consequently, the accused were discharged under BNS Section 271(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts