State of Kerala (Police), Thrikkunnappuzha vs Akshaykumar — 201104/2023
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 394, 34. Disposed: Contested--AQUITTED on 24th March 2026.
CC - CALENDAR CASE
CNR: KLAL230027292023
Filing Number
202727/2023
Filing Date
22-11-2023
Registration No
201104/2023
Registration Date
22-11-2023
Court
JFCM I, Haripad
Judge
1-Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Haripad
Decision Date
24th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--AQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
488
Police Station
Trikkunnapuzha Police Station
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala (Police), Thrikkunnappuzha
Adv. The APP, Haripad
Respondent(s)
Akshaykumar
Mahi
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Haripad
Disposed
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC
Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 17-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 16-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 12-03-2026 | Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC |
| 10-03-2026 | Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court in Haripad acquitted both accused (Akshay Kumar and Mahi) of robbery charges under IPC Sections 394 r/w 34, finding them not guilty on March 24, 2026. The court held that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to connect the accused to the alleged gold chain snatching incident, as the victim (PW1) could not identify the accused in court and there was no proof of injury, making it unsafe to convict beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court in Haripad acquitted both accused (Akshay Kumar and Mahi) of robbery charges under IPC Sections 394 r/w 34, finding them not guilty on March 24, 2026. The court held that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to connect the accused to the alleged gold chain snatching incident, as the victim (PW1) could not identify the accused in court and there was no proof of injury, making it unsafe to convict beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts