Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruneelakudi Polic Station vs Surenthar and Three others Advocate - Tr.A.Elangovan — 61/2020
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),324,506(2). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 28th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTJ270002092020
Filing Number
209/2020
Filing Date
19-08-2020
Registration No
61/2020
Registration Date
19-08-2020
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvidaimaruthur
Judge
1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvidaimarudur
Decision Date
28th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
26
Police Station
Thiruneelakudi Police Station
Year
2017
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruneelakudi Polic Station
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Surenthar and Three others Advocate - Tr.A.Elangovan
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvidaimarudur
Disposed
Part Heard
Part Heard
Trial
Trial
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 25-03-2026 | Part Heard |
| 23-03-2026 | Part Heard |
| 18-03-2026 | Trial |
| 11-03-2026 | Trial |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: The court acquitted three accused persons under IPC Sections 294(b), 324(2), and 506(ii) after finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The key evidence presented—primarily the complainant's testimony and medical certificates—was found to be inconsistent, contradictory, and insufficient to establish guilt. The court observed that the complainant gave conflicting statements and the investigating officer's account lacked credibility, consequently ordering the accused's release under CrPC Section 248(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court acquitted three accused persons under IPC Sections 294(b), 324(2), and 506(ii) after finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The key evidence presented—primarily the complainant's testimony and medical certificates—was found to be inconsistent, contradictory, and insufficient to establish guilt. The court observed that the complainant gave conflicting statements and the investigating officer's account lacked credibility, consequently ordering the accused's release under CrPC Section 248(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts