Back
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J
Kamaraj – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner was sentenced but claimed misunderstanding. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments about the lack of evidence for harassment charges. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's assessment of evidence leads to doubts on conviction. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. final judgment affirms acquittal based on insufficient evidence. (Para 8) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 03.04.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.R.C.No.1243 of 2022 Kamaraj ... Petitioner Vs.
State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thiruvarur Police Station, Thiruvarur.
Crime No.394 of 2015. ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed in the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Thiruvarur in Crl.A.No.2 of 2021 dated 08.11.2021 confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur in C.C.No.4 of 2020 dated 07.12.2020 and directed to return the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- paid by the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Ms.Chandraleka For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER The petitioner/accused was convic
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
