STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE vs Mohan — 107/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 296(b),118(2),351(2). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 30th March 2026.

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNTV150006302025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

19-05-2025

Filing Number

559/2025

Filing Date

28-05-2025

Registration No

107/2025

Registration Date

29-07-2025

Court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodavasal

Judge

1-District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

30th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

FIR Details

FIR Number

449

Police Station

KODAVASAL P.S

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 296(b),118(2),351(2)

Petitioner(s)

STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Adv. INSPECTOR OF POLICE KODAVASAL PS

Respondent(s)

Mohan

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate

30-03-2026

Disposed

25-03-2026

Judgement

24-03-2026

Questioning

17-03-2026

Evidence

13-03-2026

Evidence

Final Orders / Judgements

30-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

Summary of Case 107/2025 The District Magistrate and Judicial Magistrate Court in Kodavasal acquitted accused Mohan of charges under BNS sections 296(b), 118(2), and 351(2), applying the benefit of doubt. The court found that the prosecution's witnesses, particularly the two main complainants, contradicted themselves significantly during cross-examination—one witness admitted to settling the dispute with the accused—making the charges unproven beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

23-09-2025
Deposition
23-09-2025
Deposition
23-09-2025
Deposition
06-03-2026
Deposition
06-03-2026
Deposition
24-03-2026
Deposition
casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 107/2025 The District Magistrate and Judicial Magistrate Court in Kodavasal acquitted accused Mohan of charges under BNS sections 296(b), 118(2), and 351(2), applying the benefit of doubt. The court found that the prosecution's witnesses, particularly the two main complainants, contradicted themselves significantly during cross-examination—one witness admitted to settling the dispute with the accused—making the charges unproven beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodavasal All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case