State of Kerala Police vs Savithri Advocate - HEMA. R, HEMA. R — 100440/2024
Case under Ipc \ Section 324,341,34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED U/S 258 BNSS on 25th April 2026.
SC - SESSIONS CASE
CNR: KLAL390000762024
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
100039/2024
Filing Date
11-04-2024
Registration No
100440/2024
Registration Date
17-04-2024
Court
Fast Track Special Court, Haripad.
Judge
1-Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Haripad
Decision Date
25th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED U/S 258 BNSS
FIR Details
FIR Number
1172
Police Station
Vallikunnam Police Station
Year
2014
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala Police
Adv. Special Public Prosecutor,Haripad
Respondent(s)
Savithri Advocate - HEMA. R, HEMA. R
Anukumar
Adv. Hema.R.,ANAS ALI M M ANAS ALI M M
Suma
Adv. Hema.R.,ANAS ALI M M ANAS ALI M M
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Haripad
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
Order/ Judgement
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 25-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 23-04-2026 | Order/ Judgement | |
| 20-04-2026 | Order/ Judgement | |
| 13-04-2026 | FOR HEARING | |
| 28-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Summary The Fast Track Special Judge, Haripad acquitted three accused persons (Savithri, Anukumar, and Suma) of charges under IPC Sections 324 & 341 r/w 34 and Juvenile Justice Act Section 23, finding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court identified critical inconsistencies between witness testimonies and medical evidence, noted suppression of the case's genesis, and determined the witnesses were not credible, thereby extending the benefit of doubt to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Summary The Fast Track Special Judge, Haripad acquitted three accused persons (Savithri, Anukumar, and Suma) of charges under IPC Sections 324 & 341 r/w 34 and Juvenile Justice Act Section 23, finding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court identified critical inconsistencies between witness testimonies and medical evidence, noted suppression of the case's genesis, and determined the witnesses were not credible, thereby extending the benefit of doubt to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts