State of Kerala (Police), Kareelakkulangara vs Subair @ Pakki Subair — 200980/2024
Case under Ipc \ Section 457, 461, 380. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED U/S 271 BNSS on 25th March 2026.
CC - CALENDAR CASE
CNR: KLAL230026502024
Filing Number
202649/2024
Filing Date
17-10-2024
Registration No
200980/2024
Registration Date
17-10-2024
Court
JFCM I, Haripad
Judge
1-Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Haripad
Decision Date
25th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED U/S 271 BNSS
FIR Details
FIR Number
469
Police Station
Kareelakulangara Police Station
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala (Police), Kareelakkulangara
Adv. The APP, Haripad
Respondent(s)
Subair @ Pakki Subair
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Haripad
Disposed
Defence Evidence
Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC
Issue bailable warrant to witness
Issue bailable warrant to witness
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 23-03-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 17-03-2026 | Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC |
| 12-03-2026 | Issue bailable warrant to witness |
| 10-03-2026 | Issue bailable warrant to witness |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Haripad First Class Magistrate Court acquitted accused Subair of charges under IPC sections 457, 380, and 461 (house-breaking, theft, and burglary). The court found the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, citing critical evidentiary gaps: no recovery of stolen articles from the accused, absence of linking evidence, reliance on inadmissible police custody confessions under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, and witnesses lacking direct knowledge of the alleged June 2024 theft. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Haripad First Class Magistrate Court acquitted accused Subair of charges under IPC sections 457, 380, and 461 (house-breaking, theft, and burglary). The court found the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, citing critical evidentiary gaps: no recovery of stolen articles from the accused, absence of linking evidence, reliance on inadmissible police custody confessions under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, and witnesses lacking direct knowledge of the alleged June 2024 theft. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts