Madukkur Police Station vs Bose @ Kubendran — 10/2021
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 147,341,294(b)336,506(i),153. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 16th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTJ110000402021
Filing Number
37/2021
Filing Date
03-03-2021
Registration No
10/2021
Registration Date
03-03-2021
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Pattukottai
Judge
4-Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
250
Police Station
Madukkur Police Station
Year
2010
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Madukkur Police Station
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Bose @ Kubendran
Senguttuvan
Suresh
Sanmugam
Pazhanivel
Rasappa
Ragupathi
Prapakaran
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 11-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 24-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 12-02-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Pattukkottai acquitted all four accused persons (C.P. Bose, Sanmugam, Raasappa, and Prabharanandan) under Sections 147, 294(b), 336, 153(A), and 506(1) IPC by invoking Section 248(1) CrPC. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, primarily because the key witness (victim) gave contradictory statements—first telling police she did not recognize the perpetrators, then later implicating them during examination-in-chief, rendering the testimony unreliable and insufficient to establish guilt against the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Pattukkottai acquitted all four accused persons (C.P. Bose, Sanmugam, Raasappa, and Prabharanandan) under Sections 147, 294(b), 336, 153(A), and 506(1) IPC by invoking Section 248(1) CrPC. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, primarily because the key witness (victim) gave contradictory statements—first telling police she did not recognize the perpetrators, then later implicating them during examination-in-chief, rendering the testimony unreliable and insufficient to establish guilt against the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts