State of Kerala Police vs Kurian — 70/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 126(2),115(2),351(20,329(4). Disposed: Uncontested--AQUITTED on 29th April 2026.
ST - SUMMARY TRIAL
CNR: KLKK400001542025
Filing Number
154/2025
Filing Date
27-05-2025
Registration No
70/2025
Registration Date
31-05-2025
Court
Grama Nyayalaya Koduvally
Judge
1-Nyayadhikari, Koduvally
Decision Date
29th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--AQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
101
Police Station
Kodenchery Police Station
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala Police
Adv. Adv.RANJIN BABY APP
Respondent(s)
Kurian
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Nyayadhikari, Koduvally
Disposed
Order/Judgement
To summon witness
To summon witness
Appearance of Accused
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 27-04-2026 | Order/Judgement |
| 16-03-2026 | To summon witness |
| 13-01-2026 | To summon witness |
| 19-12-2025 | Appearance of Accused |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: ST 70/2025 Court Decision: The accused Kurian was acquitted of all charges under BNS sections 126(2), 115(2), 351(2), 329(4), and section 31 of the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. The court found the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and discharged the accused under BNS section 278(1). Key Reasoning: The sole witness (PW1—the complainant) provided insufficient evidence to establish the accused's guilt. Her testimony lacked specifics regarding whether the accused trespassed, restrained her, used violence, or made threats. Without credible corroboration and clear identification of the accused as the perpetrator, the court determined the prosecution case was not adequately substantiated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: ST 70/2025 Court Decision: The accused Kurian was acquitted of all charges under BNS sections 126(2), 115(2), 351(2), 329(4), and section 31 of the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. The court found the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and discharged the accused under BNS section 278(1). Key Reasoning: The sole witness (PW1—the complainant) provided insufficient evidence to establish the accused's guilt. Her testimony lacked specifics regarding whether the accused trespassed, restrained her, used violence, or made threats. Without credible corroboration and clear identification of the accused as the perpetrator, the court determined the prosecution case was not adequately substantiated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts