SHO Karunagappally vs Muhammad Kunju S/o Aboobakar — 100447/2019
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 341,323. Disposed: Contested--AQUITTED on 26th May 2026.
CC - CALENDAR CASE
CNR: KLKM290009012019
Filing Number
100447/2019
Filing Date
22-05-2019
Registration No
100447/2019
Registration Date
22-05-2019
Court
Judicial First Class Magistrate CourtI Karunagappally
Judge
1-Judicial First Class Magistrate I, Karunagappally.
Decision Date
26th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--AQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
582
Police Station
KARUNAGAPPALLY PS
Year
2019
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SHO (Station House Officer) Karunagappally
Respondent(s)
Muhammad Kunju S/o Aboobakar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial First Class Magistrate I, Karunagappally.
Disposed
FOR HEARING
Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC
Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC
Call on
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 26-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 22-05-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 18-05-2026 | Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC |
| 11-05-2026 | Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC |
| 04-05-2026 | Call on |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 100447/2019 Court Decision: Muhammad Kunju (age 79) was acquitted of all charges under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint) and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the Indian Penal Code. The court found him not guilty due to insufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The prosecution's case collapsed because the injured complainant could not testify due to illness, and the two key eyewitnesses turned hostile during examination. While medical evidence confirmed injuries were sustained, without substantive testimony connecting the accused to the alleged April 11, 2019 assault, the court found the prosecution had failed to establish the offense ingredients. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 100447/2019 Court Decision: Muhammad Kunju (age 79) was acquitted of all charges under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint) and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the Indian Penal Code. The court found him not guilty due to insufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The prosecution's case collapsed because the injured complainant could not testify due to illness, and the two key eyewitnesses turned hostile during examination. While medical evidence confirmed injuries were sustained, without substantive testimony connecting the accused to the alleged April 11, 2019 assault, the court found the prosecution had failed to establish the offense ingredients. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts