SI of Police, Thiruvaiyaru P.S. vs KARTHIK — 234/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 296(b),351(3)BNSr/w25(1-A)ArmsAct. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 08th April 2026.

Case disposed

SC - Sessions Case

CNR: TNTJ010059132025

e-Filing Number

05-02-2025

Filing Number

4408/2025

Filing Date

13-Feb-2025

Registration No

234/2025

Registration Date

02-Jul-2025

Court

Principal District Court, Thanjavur

Judge

1-Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

Decision Date

08-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 19-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

542

Police Station

Thiruvaiyaru Police Station

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 296(b),351(3)BNSr/w25(1-A)ArmsAct

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SI of Police, Thiruvaiyaru P.S.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.KARTHIK

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-Apr-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Summary The Principal Sessions Judge of Thanjavur acquitted Karthik of all charges under BNS sections 296(b) (abusing in filthy language) and 351(3) (criminal intimidation with deadly weapon), and Arms Act section 25(1-A) (possession of prohibited weapon). The court found critical evidentiary gaps: no independent witnesses testified despite being present at the occurrence site, the seizure document lacked the accused's signature creating doubt about weapon recovery, and the prosecution failed to produce any government notification establishing the sword as a prohibited weapon. Consequently, the court granted the accused the benefit of doubt and acquitted him. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  4. 30-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  5. 16-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  6. 11-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  7. 06-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  8. 04-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  9. 25-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  10. 18-Feb-2026

    Deposition of WitnessView PDF

  11. 18-Feb-2026

    For 313(1)(b) of Crpc questioning

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  12. 06-Feb-2026

    Part Heard

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  13. 02-Feb-2026

    Part Heard

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  14. 27-Jan-2026

    Part Heard

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  15. 21-Jan-2026

    Deposition of WitnessView PDF

  16. 21-Jan-2026

    Deposition of WitnessView PDF

  17. 21-Jan-2026

    Deposition of WitnessView PDF

  18. 21-Jan-2026

    Deposition of WitnessView PDF

  19. 21-Jan-2026

    Part Heard

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  20. 03-Jan-2026

    Trial

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  21. 08-Dec-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  22. 21-Nov-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  23. 11-Nov-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  24. 10-Nov-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  25. 03-Nov-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  26. 13-Oct-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  27. 24-Sep-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  28. 18-Sep-2025

    Trial

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  29. 25-Aug-2025

    Framing of Charges

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  30. 08-Aug-2025

    Framing of Charges

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  31. 24-Jul-2025

    Appearance

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  32. 10-Jul-2025

    Appearance

    Principal District Judge, Thanjavur

  33. 02-Jul-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  34. 13-Feb-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 234/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Principal Sessions Judge of Thanjavur acquitted Karthik of all charges under BNS sections 296(b) (abusing in filthy language) and 351(3) (criminal intimidation with deadly weapon), and Arms Act section 25(1-A) (possession of prohibited weapon). The court found critical evidentiary gaps: no independent witnesses testified despite being present at the occurrence site, the seizure document lacked the accused's signature creating doubt about weapon recovery, and the prosecution failed to produce any government notification establishing the sword as a prohibited weapon. Consequently, the court granted the accused the benefit of doubt and acquitted him. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case