SI OF POLICE UDUMALPET vs KANNAN — 291/2022
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),323,506(2). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 30th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTI170018332022
Filing Number
1833/2022
Filing Date
19-12-2022
Registration No
291/2022
Registration Date
19-12-2022
Court
Judicial Magistrate No. I Court, Udumalpet
Judge
3-Judicial Magistrate No. I, Udumalpet
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
559
Police Station
Udumalpet Police Station
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SI OF POLICE UDUMALPET
Adv. SivaGnanam Assistant Public Public Prosecutor
Respondent(s)
KANNAN
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Judicial Magistrate No. I, Udumalpet
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 26-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 12-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 09-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 27-02-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Udumalpet Magistrate Court acquitted the accused, Kannan (age 31), on charges under IPC Sections 294(b) (obscene speech), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 506(ii) (criminal intimidation) dated March 30, 2026. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt due to significant inconsistencies in witness testimonies, particularly among key eyewitnesses whose statements contradicted each other regarding the incident date, time, and sequence of events, thereby breaching the threshold for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Decision Summary The Udumalpet Magistrate Court acquitted the accused, Kannan (age 31), on charges under IPC Sections 294(b) (obscene speech), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 506(ii) (criminal intimidation) dated March 30, 2026. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt due to significant inconsistencies in witness testimonies, particularly among key eyewitnesses whose statements contradicted each other regarding the incident date, time, and sequence of events, thereby breaching the threshold for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts