SHO TINDIVANAM vs Rajendhiran — 78/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b), 323, 353, 506(1). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 27th March 2026.
CC - Calendar Case
CNR: TNVP100004692025
e-Filing Number
10-03-2025
Filing Number
463/2025
Filing Date
21-03-2025
Registration No
78/2025
Registration Date
22-03-2025
Court
Judicial Magistrate No. I Court, Tindivanam
Judge
1-Judicial Magistrate I
Decision Date
27th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
787
Police Station
Tindivanam P.S.
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SHO (Station House Officer) TINDIVANAM
Adv. Sub inspector of police Tindivanam police station
Respondent(s)
Rajendhiran
Rajkumar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial Magistrate I
Disposed
Judgement
Evidence
Questioning
Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 25-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 24-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 23-03-2026 | Questioning |
| 16-03-2026 | Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: CC 78/2025 Court Decision: The court acquitted both defendants (Rajendhiran and Rajkumar) of all charges under IPC Sections 294(b), 323, 353, and 506(1), finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The defendants were released under Section 271(1) BNSS. Key Reasoning: Despite witness testimony of an alleged assault on a police vehicle driver on 14.06.2021, critical evidentiary gaps undermined the case—no identification documents were seized, witnesses gave contradictory accounts, two defense witnesses testified they knew nothing of the incident, and no evidence showed how the complainant's duty was disrupted by the alleged assault. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: CC 78/2025 Court Decision: The court acquitted both defendants (Rajendhiran and Rajkumar) of all charges under IPC Sections 294(b), 323, 353, and 506(1), finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The defendants were released under Section 271(1) BNSS. Key Reasoning: Despite witness testimony of an alleged assault on a police vehicle driver on 14.06.2021, critical evidentiary gaps undermined the case—no identification documents were seized, witnesses gave contradictory accounts, two defense witnesses testified they knew nothing of the incident, and no evidence showed how the complainant's duty was disrupted by the alleged assault. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts