SHO CHAKKARAKKAL PS vs SHAMITH — 1086/2024
Case under Ipc 1860 Section 323,447. Disposed: Contested--AQUITTED on 28th April 2026.
CC - CALENDAR CASE
CNR: KLKN150036062024
Filing Number
2584/2024
Filing Date
05-08-2024
Registration No
1086/2024
Registration Date
05-08-2024
Court
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court 3 Kannur
Judge
7-Judicial First Class Magistrate No.3, Kannur
Decision Date
28th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--AQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
1033
Police Station
CHAKKARAKKALLU
Year
2014
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SHO (Station House Officer) CHAKKARAKKAL PS (Police Station)
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
SHAMITH
Hearing History
Judge: 7-Judicial First Class Magistrate No.3, Kannur
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
Order/ Judgement
Order/ Judgement
FOR HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 27-04-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 24-04-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 20-04-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 08-04-2026 | FOR HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: CC 1086/24 Court Decision: P. Shamith was acquitted of charges under IPC sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 447 (criminal trespass). The court found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to critical inconsistencies and lack of corroborating evidence. Key Reasoning: The complainant's oral testimony contradicted her own written FIS statement regarding the nature and location of the assault. Two occurrence witnesses turned hostile, and the property owner (Nani) was never examined to establish possession required for trespass charges. The court noted the complainant exaggerated her oral testimony compared to documentary evidence, making it unsafe to rely solely on her uncorroborated account for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: CC 1086/24 Court Decision: P. Shamith was acquitted of charges under IPC sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 447 (criminal trespass). The court found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to critical inconsistencies and lack of corroborating evidence. Key Reasoning: The complainant's oral testimony contradicted her own written FIS statement regarding the nature and location of the assault. Two occurrence witnesses turned hostile, and the property owner (Nani) was never examined to establish possession required for trespass charges. The court noted the complainant exaggerated her oral testimony compared to documentary evidence, making it unsafe to rely solely on her uncorroborated account for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts