State of Kerala (Police) vs NISHMA NOUSHAD Advocate - DEEPTH DINAKAR — 401191/2020

Case under Ipc \ Section 279,338,304(A). Disposed: Uncontested--AQUITTED on 18th March 2026.

CC - CALENDAR CASE

CNR: KLAL130029362020

Case disposed

Filing Number

402936/2020

Filing Date

09-10-2020

Registration No

401191/2020

Registration Date

09-10-2020

Court

JFCM II, Cherthala

Judge

1-Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Cherthala

Decision Date

18th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--AQUITTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

799

Police Station

Aroor Police Station

Year

2020

Acts & Sections

IPC \ Section 279,338,304(A)
Crl.MP(Ab)/1/2026 Classification : Absent Petition Section NISHMA NOUSHAD

Petitioner(s)

State of Kerala (Police)

Adv. Asst. Public Prosecutor II, Cherthala

Respondent(s)

NISHMA NOUSHAD Advocate - DEEPTH DINAKAR

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Cherthala

18-03-2026

Disposed

12-03-2026

Order/ Judgement

12-02-2026

for evidence.

15-01-2026

Appearance Of Parties

16-12-2025

for evidence.

Final Orders / Judgements

18-03-2026
Judgement

Summary The Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Cherthala acquitted Nishma Nousad of charges under IPC Sections 279, 338, and 304A (rash driving, voluntarily causing hurt, and causing death by negligence) in a 2020 scooter accident case. The court found that key prosecution witnesses turned hostile and documentary evidence alone could not establish the accused's identity as the vehicle rider or prove rash driving, necessitating acquittal under CrPC Section 255(1) due to insufficient credible oral testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Cherthala acquitted Nishma Nousad of charges under IPC Sections 279, 338, and 304A (rash driving, voluntarily causing hurt, and causing death by negligence) in a 2020 scooter accident case. The court found that key prosecution witnesses turned hostile and documentary evidence alone could not establish the accused's identity as the vehicle rider or prove rash driving, necessitating acquittal under CrPC Section 255(1) due to insufficient credible oral testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

JFCM II, Cherthala All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case