Sub inspector of police vs Ochanadevar — 177/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 329(3), 126(2), 296(b), 351(3). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 25th May 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTH020016982025
e-Filing Number
15-02-2025
Filing Number
1657/2025
Filing Date
04-04-2025
Registration No
177/2025
Registration Date
04-04-2025
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Theni
Judge
12-Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court
Decision Date
25th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
494
Police Station
Palanichettipatty P.S.
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sub inspector of police
Respondent(s)
Ochanadevar
Rajammal
Sivakumar
Chellamani
Hearing History
Judge: 12-Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 22-05-2026 | Judgement |
| 08-05-2026 | Judgement |
| 30-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 24-04-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: CC 177/2025 Court Decision: The Additional Mahila Court (Women's Court) in Theni acquitted all four accused persons (Ochanadevar, Rajammal, Sivakumar, and Selmani) of charges under BNS Sections 329(3), 126(2), 296(b), 351(3), and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, Section 4. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The court identified significant inconsistencies in the government witnesses' testimonies regarding who specifically was abused and threatened, noted contradictions about the exact location of the incident (which fell within disputed private property subject to ongoing civil litigation), and concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt with certainty. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: CC 177/2025 Court Decision: The Additional Mahila Court (Women's Court) in Theni acquitted all four accused persons (Ochanadevar, Rajammal, Sivakumar, and Selmani) of charges under BNS Sections 329(3), 126(2), 296(b), 351(3), and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, Section 4. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The court identified significant inconsistencies in the government witnesses' testimonies regarding who specifically was abused and threatened, noted contradictions about the exact location of the incident (which fell within disputed private property subject to ongoing civil litigation), and concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt with certainty. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts