State of Kerala (Police) vs Dineesh — 200234/2021
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 427,294(b). Disposed: Contested--AQUITTED on 30th March 2026.
SC - SESSIONS CASE
CNR: KLAL030003842021
Filing Number
58/2021
Filing Date
20-04-2021
Registration No
200234/2021
Registration Date
28-04-2021
Court
Sub Court Alappuzha
Judge
1-Sub Judge, Alappuzha
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--AQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
627
Police Station
North Police Station, Alappuzha
Year
2015
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala (Police)
Adv. AGP and PP For Sub Court, Alappuzha
Respondent(s)
Dineesh
Risvan Nissar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Sub Judge, Alappuzha
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
For hearing under section 232 CRPC
Issue Bailable Warrant
Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 24-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 23-03-2026 | For hearing under section 232 CRPC |
| 19-03-2026 | Issue Bailable Warrant |
| 17-03-2026 | Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Summary The Assistant Sessions Judge, Alappuzha acquitted Accused No.1 (Dineesh) of all charges under IPC Sections 427 (mischief), 294(b) (obscene words), and 308 (attempt to cause culpable homicide) read with Section 34. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as key eyewitnesses did not support the allegations, the primary complainant could not be produced despite repeated summons, and the damage certificate contradicted the prosecution narrative. The accused was granted benefit of doubt and set at liberty. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Summary The Assistant Sessions Judge, Alappuzha acquitted Accused No.1 (Dineesh) of all charges under IPC Sections 427 (mischief), 294(b) (obscene words), and 308 (attempt to cause culpable homicide) read with Section 34. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as key eyewitnesses did not support the allegations, the primary complainant could not be produced despite repeated summons, and the damage certificate contradicted the prosecution narrative. The accused was granted benefit of doubt and set at liberty. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts