State of Kerala Police vs Vijayan Advocate - SARUN. K IDICULA — 101225/2023
Case under Ipc \ Section 323,354,354A(i)(i),427,34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED U/S 258 BNSS on 25th March 2026.
SC - SESSIONS CASE
CNR: KLAL390002502023
Filing Number
100126/2023
Filing Date
07-11-2023
Registration No
101225/2023
Registration Date
07-12-2023
Court
Fast Track Special Court, Haripad.
Judge
1-Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Haripad
Decision Date
25th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED U/S 258 BNSS
FIR Details
FIR Number
1633
Police Station
Trikkunnapuzha Police Station
Year
2020
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala Police
Adv. Special Public Prosecutor,Haripad
Respondent(s)
Vijayan Advocate - SARUN. K IDICULA
A2-Saran
A3-Laly Thankachy
A4.Silpa
A5- Prasanna
A6-Sunil@ Ambili
A7- Syam
A8-Sunilkumar @ Kochumon
A9-Santhosh
A10-Vishnuprasad
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Haripad
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
Order/ Judgement
Order/Judgement
Order/ Judgement
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 23-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 18-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 12-03-2026 | Order/Judgement |
| 10-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Special Judge of the Fast Track Court in Haripad, Kerala acquitted all ten accused of charges under sections 323, 354, and 427 IPC read with section 34, and section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient and unreliable, citing inconsistencies between the complainant's testimony and medical evidence, lack of independent corroboration, and investigative gaps regarding allegedly damaged property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Special Judge of the Fast Track Court in Haripad, Kerala acquitted all ten accused of charges under sections 323, 354, and 427 IPC read with section 34, and section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient and unreliable, citing inconsistencies between the complainant's testimony and medical evidence, lack of independent corroboration, and investigative gaps regarding allegedly damaged property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts