State,Somwarpet P.S. vs Jagadish B. M. Advocate - K.A. Keerthi Raj Kumar — 84/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 504,506,307,R/w,34. Status: EVIDENCE - Criminal. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
SC - SESSION CASES
CNR: KAKD010011432024
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
84/2024
Filing Date
25-09-2024
Registration No
84/2024
Registration Date
25-09-2024
Court
PRL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MADIKERI
Judge
363-PRL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MADIKERI.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State,Somwarpet P.S.
Adv. Public Procecutor
Respondent(s)
Jagadish B. M. Advocate - K.A. Keerthi Raj Kumar
Ashray
Adv. K.A. Keerthi Raj Kumar
Manjunath.B.M
Adv. K.A. Keerthi Raj Kumar
Hearing History
Judge: 363-PRL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MADIKERI.
EVIDENCE - Criminal
EVIDENCE - Criminal
EVIDENCE - Criminal
EVIDENCE - Criminal
EVIDENCE - Criminal
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | EVIDENCE - Criminal |
| 07-03-2026 | EVIDENCE - Criminal |
| 06-03-2026 | EVIDENCE - Criminal |
| 09-12-2025 | EVIDENCE - Criminal |
| 08-12-2025 | EVIDENCE - Criminal |
Interim Orders
Summary: This is a trial court order from the Principal District and Sessions Court, Kodagu-Madikeri (SC No. 84/2024) recording the examination of witness PW-7 (Shri Devraj, age 59, a cutting shop worker from Somarapete) on 09-03-2026. The witness denied knowledge of the accused persons and disputed the police's seizure of alleged evidence, stating he did not know what was written in the FIR memo or why photographs were taken. The prosecution cross-examined him as a hostile witness, while the defense counsel for accused 1-3 had no cross-examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: This is a trial court order from the Principal District and Sessions Court, Kodagu-Madikeri (SC No. 84/2024) recording the examination of witness PW-7 (Shri Devraj, age 59, a cutting shop worker from Somarapete) on 09-03-2026. The witness denied knowledge of the accused persons and disputed the police's seizure of alleged evidence, stating he did not know what was written in the FIR memo or why photographs were taken. The prosecution cross-examined him as a hostile witness, while the defense counsel for accused 1-3 had no cross-examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts