State of Kerala vs Kishore Advocate - RAJESH. P — 100113/2017
Case under Ipc \ Section 149. Status: For cross examination.. Next hearing: 18th May 2026.
SC - SESSIONS CASE
CNR: KLAL100000462017
Next Hearing
18th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1000008/2017
Filing Date
02-03-2017
Registration No
100113/2017
Registration Date
02-03-2017
Court
Sub Court, Cherthala
Judge
1-Sub Judge and Asst.Sessions Judge, Cherthala
FIR Details
FIR Number
450
Police Station
Cherthala Police Station
Year
2016
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala
Adv. Radhakrishnan. G
Respondent(s)
Kishore Advocate - RAJESH. P
Amalsankar @ Appu
Adv. RAJESH P
Sreejith @ Sreejesh
Adv. RAJESH P
Akhil
Adv. RAJESH P
Abhijith @ Abhi
Adv. RAJESH P
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Sub Judge and Asst.Sessions Judge, Cherthala
For cross examination.
For return of summons
Repeat Summons
Judge on leave / duty
Judge on traing programme
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | For cross examination. | |
| 09-03-2026 | For return of summons | |
| 27-02-2026 | Repeat Summons | |
| 19-02-2026 | Judge on leave / duty | |
| 16-02-2026 | Judge on traing programme |
Interim Orders
Summary The Court of Session, Alappuzha allowed the prosecution's application under Section 311 CrPC to recall witness PW1 for identifying weapons that were inadvertently omitted during his initial examination. The court found that recalling PW1 to identify the remaining weapons was essential for just adjudication, as the omission was a procedural oversight rather than a lacuna in evidence, and would not prejudice the accused who could cross-examine the witness on weapon identification. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Court of Session, Alappuzha allowed the prosecution's application under Section 311 CrPC to recall witness PW1 for identifying weapons that were inadvertently omitted during his initial examination. The court found that recalling PW1 to identify the remaining weapons was essential for just adjudication, as the omission was a procedural oversight rather than a lacuna in evidence, and would not prejudice the accused who could cross-examine the witness on weapon identification. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts