State Government by the Inspector of Thanjavur taluk Police vs T. Vigneshwaran Alias X Kal vicky — 378/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 399. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 06th April 2026.
SC - Sessions Case
CNR: TNTJ010104072025
Filing Number
7798/2025
Filing Date
15-12-2020
Registration No
378/2025
Registration Date
03-11-2025
Court
Principal District Court, Thanjavur
Judge
2-Additional District Judge, Special Court under E C Act cases, Thanjavur
Decision Date
06th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State Government by the Inspector of Thanjavur taluk Police
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
T. Vigneshwaran Alias X Kal vicky
Thivagar
Praveen Kumar
Nantha Kumar
Chellapaa
Tamilarasan Alias Mottai(SPLIT uP)
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Additional District Judge, Special Court under E C Act cases, Thanjavur
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Questioning
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 30-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 28-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 25-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 23-03-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Additional District Judge of Thanjavur acquitted five accused persons (A1-A5) charged under IPC Section 399 (making preparation to commit dacoity) due to insufficient evidence. The court found critical flaws in the prosecution's case: the seizure document bore a crime number and legal section before the FIR was registered, the accused's typed confession statement lacked procedural clarity, and no independent witnesses corroborated the police testimony despite houses nearby. The court concluded the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, noting that uncorroborated police evidence alone is insufficient when investigative integrity is questionable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The Additional District Judge of Thanjavur acquitted five accused persons (A1-A5) charged under IPC Section 399 (making preparation to commit dacoity) due to insufficient evidence. The court found critical flaws in the prosecution's case: the seizure document bore a crime number and legal section before the FIR was registered, the accused's typed confession statement lacked procedural clarity, and no independent witnesses corroborated the police testimony despite houses nearby. The court concluded the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, noting that uncorroborated police evidence alone is insufficient when investigative integrity is questionable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts