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-Apr-2025
Registration No
177/2025
Registration Date
04-Apr-2025
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Theni
Judge
12-Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court
Decision Date
25-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Last updated 03-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
494
Police Station
Palanichettipatty P.S.
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Sub inspector of police
Respondent(s)
-
1.Ochanadevar
-
2.Rajammal
-
3.Sivakumar
-
4.Chellamani
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
25-May-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
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.
-
25-May-2026
Disposed
Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court
-
22-May-2026
Judgement
Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court
-
08-May-2026
Judgement
Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court
-
30-Apr-2026
Arguments
Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court
-
24-Apr-2026
Arguments
Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court
-
20-Apr-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court
-
08-Apr-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court
-
13-Mar-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court
-
20-Feb-2026
Evidence
Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court
-
09-Feb-2026
Service Pending-Summon
Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court
-
03-Feb-2026
Questioning
Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court
-
08-Jan-2026
Service Pending-Summon
Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court
-
11-Dec-2025
Service Pending-Summon
Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court
-
25-Nov-2025
Service Pending-Summon
Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court
-
20-Nov-2025
Service Pending-Summon
Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court
-
23-Oct-2025
Trial
Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court
-
25-Sep-2025
Trial
Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court
-
26-Aug-2025
Trial
Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court
-
24-Jul-2025
Trial
Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court
-
08-Jul-2025
Trial
Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court
-
24-Jun-2025
Trial
Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court
-
27-May-2025
Trial
Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court
-
22-May-2025
Framing of Charges
Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court
-
17-May-2025
Copies
Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court
-
12-May-2025
Issue of Service
Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahila Court
-
04-Apr-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
04-Apr-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 177/2025
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.
Explore other courts