State of Kerala vs Ulahannan — 100509/2019
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 17. Disposed: Contested--AQUITTED U/S 235 CR.PC on 21st March 2026.
SC - SESSIONS CASE
CNR: KLAL100001282019
Filing Number
100018/2019
Filing Date
23-07-2019
Registration No
100509/2019
Registration Date
23-07-2019
Court
Sub Court, Cherthala
Judge
1-Sub Judge and Asst.Sessions Judge, Cherthala
Decision Date
21st March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--AQUITTED U/S 235 CR.PC
FIR Details
FIR Number
2299
Police Station
Cherthala Police Station
Year
2017
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala
Adv. Additional Public Prosecuter Gr.II
Respondent(s)
Ulahannan
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Sub Judge and Asst.Sessions Judge, Cherthala
Disposed
Order/Judgement
For further hearing
FOR HEARING
For evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 19-03-2026 | Order/Judgement |
| 17-03-2026 | For further hearing |
| 12-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 11-03-2026 | For evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted Ulahannan of charges under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) and Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the essential element of mens rea—the accused's specific intention to instigate the deceased's suicide. While acknowledging that Ajith had borrowed money and faced financial distress from execution proceedings, the court determined that the accused's lawful recovery efforts through legal means and the absence of any proximate threatening act immediately preceding the suicide were insufficient to establish criminal abetment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted Ulahannan of charges under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) and Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the essential element of mens rea—the accused's specific intention to instigate the deceased's suicide. While acknowledging that Ajith had borrowed money and faced financial distress from execution proceedings, the court determined that the accused's lawful recovery efforts through legal means and the absence of any proximate threatening act immediately preceding the suicide were insufficient to establish criminal abetment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts