State of Kerala (Police) vs Sajeev Abdul Rahman, S/o Abdul Rahman — 500448/2022
Case under Ipc \ Section 294(b),447,323,354. Disposed: Contested--AQUITTED on 12th May 2026.
CC - CALENDAR CASE
CNR: KLAL190008762022
Filing Number
500867/2022
Filing Date
09-11-2022
Registration No
500448/2022
Registration Date
09-11-2022
Court
JFMC II, Mavelikkara
Judge
1-Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Mavelikara
Decision Date
12th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--AQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
701
Police Station
Nooranad Police Station
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala (Police)
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Sajeev Abdul Rahman, S/o Abdul Rahman
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Mavelikara
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
Order/Judgement
Order/Judgement
FOR HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 07-05-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 30-04-2026 | Order/Judgement |
| 28-04-2026 | Order/Judgement |
| 27-04-2026 | FOR HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State of Kerala v. Sajeev Abdul Rahman (CC 448/2022) The court acquitted the accused of charges under IPC sections 447 (criminal trespass), 294(b) (obscene words), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 354 (outraging modesty), finding material contradictions between witnesses' oral testimonies and documentary evidence. Key discrepancies included conflicting accounts of injury location (left vs. right cheek), details absent from FIS/medical certificates, and lack of independent corroboration—potential eyewitnesses turned hostile while the only supporting witness was the victim's business partner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: State of Kerala v. Sajeev Abdul Rahman (CC 448/2022) The court acquitted the accused of charges under IPC sections 447 (criminal trespass), 294(b) (obscene words), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 354 (outraging modesty), finding material contradictions between witnesses' oral testimonies and documentary evidence. Key discrepancies included conflicting accounts of injury location (left vs. right cheek), details absent from FIS/medical certificates, and lack of independent corroboration—potential eyewitnesses turned hostile while the only supporting witness was the victim's business partner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts