State of Kerala Police vs Sarath @ Unni Advocate - AJESH KUMAR. S — 100101/2024
Case under Ipc \ Section 294(b),506(i),447. Disposed: Contested--AQUITTED on 26th May 2026.
CC - CALENDAR CASE
CNR: KLAL320004842024
Filing Number
100482/2024
Filing Date
21-02-2024
Registration No
100101/2024
Registration Date
21-02-2024
Court
JFCM Ramankary
Judge
1-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary
Decision Date
26th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--AQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
28
Police Station
Ramankary Police Station
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala Police
Adv. Asst. Public Prosecutor, Ramankari
Respondent(s)
Sarath @ Unni Advocate - AJESH KUMAR. S
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
FOR HEARING
Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC
for evidence.
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 26-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 25-05-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 21-05-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 19-05-2026 | Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC |
| 12-05-2026 | for evidence. |
Interim Orders
CASE SUMMARY: C.C.No. 101/2024 The court acquitted accused Unni @ Sarath of charges under IPC sections 294(b) (obscene words), 506(i) (criminal intimidation), and 447 (trespass). The prosecution failed to prove essential ingredients—no witness specifically deposed about obscene words uttered, no independent witnesses corroborated the allegations, and a seven-day delay in lodging the FIR was unexplained. The court found inconsistencies between witness statements and lack of documentary proof that the complainant possessed the allegedly trespassed house, warranting acquittal under CrPC section 255(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
CASE SUMMARY: C.C.No. 101/2024 The court acquitted accused Unni @ Sarath of charges under IPC sections 294(b) (obscene words), 506(i) (criminal intimidation), and 447 (trespass). The prosecution failed to prove essential ingredients—no witness specifically deposed about obscene words uttered, no independent witnesses corroborated the allegations, and a seven-day delay in lodging the FIR was unexplained. The court found inconsistencies between witness statements and lack of documentary proof that the complainant possessed the allegedly trespassed house, warranting acquittal under CrPC section 255(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts