SHO Karkala Town PS vs ANANDA ACHARYA — 1699/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 281,106. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 09th March 2026.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: KAUP210026052025
e-Filing Number
18-11-2025
Filing Number
1699/2025
Filing Date
18-11-2025
Registration No
1699/2025
Registration Date
18-11-2025
Court
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC , KARKALA
Judge
512-PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
Decision Date
09th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SHO (Station House Officer) Karkala Town PS (Police Station)
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
ANANDA ACHARYA
Hearing History
Judge: 512-PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
ARGUMENTS-CRIMINAL
EVIDENCE-CRIMINAL
EVIDENCE-CRIMINAL
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 06-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 04-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS-CRIMINAL |
| 02-03-2026 | EVIDENCE-CRIMINAL |
| 16-02-2026 | EVIDENCE-CRIMINAL |
Interim Orders
The witness (Rajendra, 48 years old, farmer from Neere Bailuru) testified that he could not identify the accused in court, had no knowledge of the accident details, did not witness the incident, and did not provide any statement to police. The court found the witness's testimony lacks credibility as he could not recognize key details about the accident case, including the vehicles involved or its cause. The cross-examination by the accused's counsel did not yield any additional information, and the court noted the witness provided inconsistent accounts regarding his involvement in the site inspection conducted on 05-08-2025. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The witness (Rajendra, 48 years old, farmer from Neere Bailuru) testified that he could not identify the accused in court, had no knowledge of the accident details, did not witness the incident, and did not provide any statement to police. The court found the witness's testimony lacks credibility as he could not recognize key details about the accident case, including the vehicles involved or its cause. The cross-examination by the accused's counsel did not yield any additional information, and the court noted the witness provided inconsistent accounts regarding his involvement in the site inspection conducted on 05-08-2025. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts