SHO OLAKKUR PS CR NO 158 2023 vs AFROSE — 149/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 279,304(A)IPC. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 12th March 2026.

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNVP100053412024

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

11-10-2024

Filing Number

5310/2024

Filing Date

10-10-2024

Registration No

149/2024

Registration Date

10-10-2024

Court

Judicial Magistrate No. I Court, Tindivanam

Judge

1-Judicial Magistrate I

Decision Date

12th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 279,304(A)IPC
Mp/1/2025 Classification : 317 Cr.pc Section AFROSESHO OLAKKUR PS CR NO 158 2023
Mp/2/2025 Classification : 317 Cr.pc Section AFROSESHO OLAKKUR PS CR NO 158 2023
Mp/3/2025 Classification : 317 Cr.pc Section SHO OLAKKUR PS CR NO 158 2023AFROSE

Petitioner(s)

SHO (Station House Officer) OLAKKUR PS (Police Station) CR NO 158 2023

Adv. Sub Inspector of Police Olakkur Police station

Respondent(s)

AFROSE

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Judicial Magistrate I

12-03-2026

Disposed

09-03-2026

Judgement

06-03-2026

Evidence

05-03-2026

Evidence

02-03-2026

Questioning

Final Orders / Judgements

12-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

The court acquitted the defendant (Abrose, age 22) of charges under IPC Sections 279 (rash driving) and 304(A) (death by negligence) because the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that while eyewitness testimonies were contradictory regarding the accident location and circumstances, and crucial investigative details like CCTV footage were absent, the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt. The defendant was discharged under CrPC Section 255(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

05-01-2026
Deposition
06-02-2026
Deposition
07-02-2026
Deposition
02-03-2026
Deposition
casestatus.in Summary

The court acquitted the defendant (Abrose, age 22) of charges under IPC Sections 279 (rash driving) and 304(A) (death by negligence) because the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that while eyewitness testimonies were contradictory regarding the accident location and circumstances, and crucial investigative details like CCTV footage were absent, the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt. The defendant was discharged under CrPC Section 255(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Judicial Magistrate No. I Court, Tindivanam All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case