Inspector of Police vs Nallamalai Advocate - A.Kathapandi — 117/2018
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 Section 294(b), 307IPC. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 18th March 2026.
SC - Sessions Case
CNR: TNTS010002182018
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
117/2018
Filing Date
05-03-2018
Registration No
117/2018
Registration Date
05-03-2018
Court
Principal District Court, Tenkasi
Judge
2-Additional District Session Judge
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
56
Police Station
Uthumalai P.S.,
Year
2016
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Inspector of Police
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Nallamalai Advocate - A.Kathapandi
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Additional District Session Judge
Disposed
Judgement
Questioning
Part Heard
Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 12-03-2026 | Judgement | |
| 10-03-2026 | Questioning | |
| 06-03-2026 | Part Heard | |
| 27-02-2026 | Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Tirunelveli Sessions Court acquitted the defendant of charges under IPC Sections 294(b) and 307, and the Arms Act 1959 Section 25(1)(1A), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses' testimonies, particularly that the alleged shooting victim testified he suffered no injuries, and the primary witnesses contradicted the case narrative, thereby benefiting the defendant from the presumption of innocence under CrPC Section 235(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The Tirunelveli Sessions Court acquitted the defendant of charges under IPC Sections 294(b) and 307, and the Arms Act 1959 Section 25(1)(1A), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses' testimonies, particularly that the alleged shooting victim testified he suffered no injuries, and the primary witnesses contradicted the case narrative, thereby benefiting the defendant from the presumption of innocence under CrPC Section 235(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