TINDIVANAM 30 of 2025 vs Akash Appu — 681/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 296(b),126(2),132,121(1), 115(2),118(1),351(3). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 29th May 2026.

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNVP100030842025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

28-11-2025

Filing Number

3071/2025

Filing Date

06-12-2025

Registration No

681/2025

Registration Date

06-12-2025

Court

Judicial Magistrate No. I Court, Tindivanam

Judge

1-Judicial Magistrate I

Decision Date

29th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

FIR Details

FIR Number

300

Police Station

Tindivanam P.S.

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 296(b),126(2),132,121(1), 115(2),118(1),351(3)

Petitioner(s)

TINDIVANAM 30 of 2025

Adv. Sub inspector of police Tindivanam police station

Respondent(s)

Akash Appu

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Judicial Magistrate I

29-05-2026

Disposed

26-05-2026

Judgement

25-05-2026

Judgement

22-05-2026

Arguments

20-05-2026

Questioning

Final Orders / Judgements

29-05-2026
Copy of Judgment

Case Summary: CC 681/2025 Court Decision: The Tindivanam Magistrate Court acquitted all accused (Akash Appu and three others) under sections 296(b), 126(2), 132, 121(1), 115(2), 118(1), and 351(3) BNS. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Inconsistencies in witness testimonies—particularly regarding who attacked whom, the weapon used, and the exact incident location—created sufficient doubt to warrant acquittal under section 271(1) BNSS. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

05-01-2026
Deposition
28-01-2026
Deposition
07-05-2026
Deposition
11-05-2026
Deposition
casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CC 681/2025 Court Decision: The Tindivanam Magistrate Court acquitted all accused (Akash Appu and three others) under sections 296(b), 126(2), 132, 121(1), 115(2), 118(1), and 351(3) BNS. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Inconsistencies in witness testimonies—particularly regarding who attacked whom, the weapon used, and the exact incident location—created sufficient doubt to warrant acquittal under section 271(1) BNSS. 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

Judicial Magistrate No. I Court, Tindivanam All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case