Samudurai vs Inspector of Police Achanpudur P.S. — 235/2026
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 243. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 12th March 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNTS010004092026
Filing Number
319/2026
Filing Date
22-Jan-2026
Registration No
235/2026
Registration Date
22-Jan-2026
Court
Principal District Court, Tenkasi
Judge
2-Additional District Session Judge
Decision Date
12-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
Last updated 10-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Samudurai
Adv. R.Appavu Rathinam
Respondent(s)
-
1.Inspector of Police Achanpudur P.S.
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
12-Mar-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tenkasi allowed the petition filed by five accused persons under Section 243 CrPC to summon three forensic science experts (DNA, Anthropology, and Chemical experts) to testify. The court determined that examining these witnesses was necessary in the interest of justice, as the case critically depends on scientific evidence to establish the identity of the deceased victim, and the defense contends that key forensic reports do not support the prosecution's theory that the recovered head and trunk belonged to the same person. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
12-Mar-2026
Disposed
Additional District Session Judge
-
11-Mar-2026
Orders
Additional District Session Judge
-
10-Mar-2026
Orders
Additional District Session Judge
-
27-Feb-2026
Enquiry
Additional District Session Judge
-
20-Feb-2026
Arguments
Additional District Session Judge
-
13-Feb-2026
Enquiry
Additional District Session Judge
-
06-Feb-2026
Issue of Service
Additional District Session Judge
-
22-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
22-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 235/2026
The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tenkasi allowed the petition filed by five accused persons under Section 243 CrPC to summon three forensic science experts (DNA, Anthropology, and Chemical experts) to testify. The court determined that examining these witnesses was necessary in the interest of justice, as the case critically depends on scientific evidence to establish the identity of the deceased victim, and the defense contends that key forensic reports do not support the prosecution's theory that the recovered head and trunk belonged to the same person. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts