State of Kerala Police vs Subrahamanyan @ Devan Advocate - Vidhu.M.Unnithan, Vidhu.M.Unnithan, Vidhu.M.UnnithanJAYAN P,, Vidhu.M.UnnithanJAYAN P,Biji, — 101062/2024
Case under Ipc \ Section 354,354A(1)(i). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED U/S 258 BNSS on 12th May 2026.
SC - SESSIONS CASE
CNR: KLAL390002322024
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
100117/2024
Filing Date
11-09-2024
Registration No
101062/2024
Registration Date
23-10-2024
Court
Fast Track Special Court, Haripad.
Judge
1-Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Haripad
Decision Date
12th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED U/S 258 BNSS
FIR Details
FIR Number
1356
Police Station
Ambalapuzha Police Station
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala Police
Adv. Special Public Prosecutor,Haripad
Respondent(s)
Subrahamanyan @ Devan Advocate - Vidhu.M.Unnithan, Vidhu.M.Unnithan, Vidhu.M.UnnithanJAYAN P,, Vidhu.M.UnnithanJAYAN P,Biji,
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Haripad
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
Order/ Judgement
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 12-05-2026 | Disposed | |
| 08-05-2026 | Order/ Judgement | |
| 02-05-2026 | Order/ Judgement | |
| 27-04-2026 | FOR HEARING | |
| 24-04-2026 | FOR HEARING |
Interim Orders
Summary The Fast Track Special Court in Haripad allowed an application under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code to reopen defense evidence. The accused, charged with sexual offenses under IPC Sections 354 & 354-A(1)(i) and POCSO Act provisions, sought to recall Defense Witness 1 to mark documentary evidence (medical certificates and death documents) that were inadvertently not marked during the witness's initial examination due to defense counsel's mistake. The court found that allowing the documents to be marked would not prejudice the prosecution and was necessary for the accused to properly prove his defense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Fast Track Special Court in Haripad allowed an application under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code to reopen defense evidence. The accused, charged with sexual offenses under IPC Sections 354 & 354-A(1)(i) and POCSO Act provisions, sought to recall Defense Witness 1 to mark documentary evidence (medical certificates and death documents) that were inadvertently not marked during the witness's initial examination due to defense counsel's mistake. The court found that allowing the documents to be marked would not prejudice the prosecution and was necessary for the accused to properly prove his defense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts