State of Kerala Police vs Rajesh @ Manoj — 101418/2024
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 74,75(2),75(3). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED U/S 258 BNSS on 28th March 2026.
SC - SESSIONS CASE
CNR: KLAL390002722024
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
100137/2024
Filing Date
23-11-2024
Registration No
101418/2024
Registration Date
21-12-2024
Court
Fast Track Special Court, Haripad.
Judge
1-Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Haripad
Decision Date
28th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED U/S 258 BNSS
FIR Details
FIR Number
707
Police Station
Trikkunnapuzha Police Station
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala Police
Adv. Special Public Prosecutor,Haripad
Respondent(s)
Rajesh @ Manoj
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Haripad
Disposed
Order/Judgement
Order/ Judgement
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 28-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 26-03-2026 | Order/Judgement | |
| 23-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement | |
| 21-03-2026 | FOR HEARING | |
| 17-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court's Decision Summary: The Fast Track Special Judge at Haripad acquitted Rajesh @ Manoj of charges under Sections 74, 75(2) & 75(1)(iv) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 8 r/W 7 & 12 r/W 11(i) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The court found critical inconsistencies in the victim's testimony—including significant differences between her police statement and court evidence, delayed FIR lodging without proper explanation, and lack of corroborating witnesses. The judge concluded the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and extended the benefit of doubt to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court's Decision Summary: The Fast Track Special Judge at Haripad acquitted Rajesh @ Manoj of charges under Sections 74, 75(2) & 75(1)(iv) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 8 r/W 7 & 12 r/W 11(i) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The court found critical inconsistencies in the victim's testimony—including significant differences between her police statement and court evidence, delayed FIR lodging without proper explanation, and lack of corroborating witnesses. The judge concluded the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and extended 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