State Government SI of Police, East Ps, Thanjavur vs Vickly Alias Vignesh — 263/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 7(1)(a)CLAAC. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 24th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTJ050020522025
Filing Number
2036/2025
Filing Date
30-01-2017
Registration No
263/2025
Registration Date
20-05-2025
Court
Judicial Magistrate Courts, Thanjavur
Judge
7-Judicial Magistrate No.I
Decision Date
24th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
488/2015
Police Station
Thanjavur East Police Station
Year
2015
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State Government SI of Police, East Ps (Police Station), Thanjavur
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Vickly Alias Vignesh
Mohamed Arif(Absconding)
Hearing History
Judge: 7-Judicial Magistrate No.I
Disposed
Judgement
Trial
Trial
Trial
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 18-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 17-03-2026 | Trial |
| 12-03-2026 | Trial |
| 11-03-2026 | Trial |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary In this criminal case (CC No. 263/2025) from Thanjavur District Court, the court acquitted the 4th accused under IPC Sections 151 Cr.Pc r/w 7(1)(a) CLA Act. The court found that while three police officers testified for the prosecution, no independent civilian witnesses were examined despite the incident occurring in a public area, and the testimony of police officers alone was insufficient to prove criminal intimidation charges beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the benefit of doubt was given to the accused, resulting in acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary In this criminal case (CC No. 263/2025) from Thanjavur District Court, the court acquitted the 4th accused under IPC Sections 151 Cr.Pc r/w 7(1)(a) CLA Act. The court found that while three police officers testified for the prosecution, no independent civilian witnesses were examined despite the incident occurring in a public area, and the testimony of police officers alone was insufficient to prove criminal intimidation charges beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the benefit of doubt was given to the accused, resulting in acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts