State of Kerala vs Ajil Lal — 741/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 354A(1)(i), 354(1)(ii), 354A(2) 342, 363,376(3),376(2)(n),376(2),376(1). Status: Call with MP. Next hearing: 01st April 2026.

SC - SESSIONS CASE

CNR: KLKK440001952024

Call with MP

Next Hearing

01st April 2026

Filing Number

98/2024

Filing Date

20-07-2024

Registration No

741/2024

Registration Date

20-07-2024

Court

Special Fast Track Court, Koyilandy

Judge

1-Special Judge (Fast track POCSO)

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 354A(1)(i), 354(1)(ii), 354A(2) 342, 363,376(3),376(2)(n),376(2),376(1)
Sc/st(prevention of Attrocities) Act 1989\ Section 3(1)w(1), 3(2)(va)
Crl.mp/558/2025 Classification : Section Ajil LalState of Kerala
Crl.mp/724/2025 Classification : Petition Section Ajil LalState of Kerala
Crl.mp/1/2026 Classification : Petition Section State of KeralaAjil Lal

Petitioner(s)

State of Kerala

Adv. Public Prosecutor

Respondent(s)

Ajil Lal

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Special Judge (Fast track POCSO)

25-03-2026

Call with MP

17-03-2026

Defence Evidence

07-03-2026

Defence Evidence

26-02-2026

Defence Evidence

18-02-2026

Issue bailable warrant to witness

Interim Orders

12-12-2025
Interim Order

Summary: The petition filed by accused Ajil Lal to summon the Magistrate who recorded the survivor's statement under Section 164 CrPC to prove alleged contradictions has been dismissed. The court held that examination of the Magistrate is not required for proving contradictions in Section 164 statements, as such statements constitute public documents and settled judicial precedent does not mandate such examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The petition filed by accused Ajil Lal to summon the Magistrate who recorded the survivor's statement under Section 164 CrPC to prove alleged contradictions has been dismissed. The court held that examination of the Magistrate is not required for proving contradictions in Section 164 statements, as such statements constitute public documents and settled judicial precedent does not mandate such examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Special Fast Track Court, Koyilandy All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case