Adirampattinam Police Station vs Thiruppathi — 40/2022
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 294(b), 448, 323, 324, 506(2). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 11th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTJ110004392022
Filing Number
429/2022
Filing Date
25-07-2022
Registration No
40/2022
Registration Date
25-07-2022
Court
Judicial Magistrate Court, Pattukottai
Judge
4-Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
11th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
180
Police Station
Adirampattinam Police Station
Year
2019
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Adirampattinam Police Station
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Thiruppathi
Hariharan
Vikki(Absconding)
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Arguments
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 07-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 06-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 04-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 26-02-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Pattukkottai acquitted the two accused (Tirupathi and Hariharan) of charges under IPC Sections 294(b), 448, 324, and 506(2), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that the prosecution witnesses, particularly the first four witnesses who gave statements to police, later contradicted themselves during trial, providing inconsistent testimony. The court noted that without credible and consistent witness testimony to corroborate the allegations of abusive language, assault, and threats, the prosecution could not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Pattukkottai acquitted the two accused (Tirupathi and Hariharan) of charges under IPC Sections 294(b), 448, 324, and 506(2), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that the prosecution witnesses, particularly the first four witnesses who gave statements to police, later contradicted themselves during trial, providing inconsistent testimony. The court noted that without credible and consistent witness testimony to corroborate the allegations of abusive language, assault, and threats, the prosecution could not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts