SI OF POLICE GRP JOLARPET vs ALAMELU R — 150/2019
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 120(B),379 IPC. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 25th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNTU020023492019
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
2346/2019
Filing Date
19-03-2019
Registration No
150/2019
Registration Date
20-03-2019
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tirupathur
Judge
9-Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thirupathur
Decision Date
25th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
117
Police Station
JOLARPET POLICE STATION
Year
2017
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SI OF POLICE GRP JOLARPET
Adv. ASST PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Respondent(s)
ALAMELU R
PAGALAMMAL
Rajendiran
Hearing History
Judge: 9-Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thirupathur
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 16-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 13-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 11-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 10-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Tirupathur acquitted three accused persons (Alamelu, Pagalammal, and Rajendran) of charges under IPC sections 379 (theft) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) related to alleged gold jewelry theft from a train passenger in 2017. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, citing critical evidentiary gaps including no eyewitness testimony to the actual theft, discrepancies between alleged stolen items (jewelry) and recovered property (golden coin), and unsubstantiated circumstantial evidence. The recovered gold coin was returned to the complainant, and the accused were discharged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court in Tirupathur acquitted three accused persons (Alamelu, Pagalammal, and Rajendran) of charges under IPC sections 379 (theft) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) related to alleged gold jewelry theft from a train passenger in 2017. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, citing critical evidentiary gaps including no eyewitness testimony to the actual theft, discrepancies between alleged stolen items (jewelry) and recovered property (golden coin), and unsubstantiated circumstantial evidence. The recovered gold coin was returned to the complainant, and the accused were discharged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts