SHO CHAKKARAKKAL PS vs SHAMITH — 1086/2024

Case under Ipc 1860 Section 323,447. Disposed: Contested--AQUITTED on 28th April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CALENDAR CASE

CNR: KLKN150036062024

Filing Number

2584/2024

Filing Date

05-Aug-2024

Registration No

1086/2024

Registration Date

05-Aug-2024

Court

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court 3 Kannur

Judge

7-Judicial First Class Magistrate No.3, Kannur

Decision Date

28-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--AQUITTED

Last updated 10-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

1033

Police Station

CHAKKARAKKALLU

Year

2014

Acts & Sections

Ipc 1860 Section 323,447

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHO (Station House Officer) CHAKKARAKKAL PS (Police Station)

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SHAMITH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 28-Apr-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    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.

  3. 28-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial First Class Magistrate No.3, Kannur

  4. 27-Apr-2026

    Order/ Judgement

    Judicial First Class Magistrate No.3, Kannur

  5. 24-Apr-2026

    Order/ Judgement

    Judicial First Class Magistrate No.3, Kannur

  6. 20-Apr-2026

    Order/ Judgement

    Judicial First Class Magistrate No.3, Kannur

  7. 08-Apr-2026

    For Hearing

    Judicial First Class Magistrate No.3, Kannur

  8. 25-Mar-2026

    For Hearing

    Judicial First Class Magistrate No.3, Kannur

  9. 16-Mar-2026

    For Hearing

    Judicial First Class Magistrate No.3, Kannur

  10. 06-Mar-2026

    For Hearing

    Judicial First Class Magistrate No.3, Kannur

  11. 23-Feb-2026

    Defence Evidence

    Judicial First Class Magistrate No.3, Kannur

  12. 11-Feb-2026

    Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC

    Judicial First Class Magistrate No.3, Kannur

  13. 31-Jan-2026

    Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC

    Judicial First Class Magistrate No.3, Kannur

  14. 28-Jan-2026

    Adjourned

    Judicial First Class Magistrate No.3, Kannur

  15. 27-Jan-2026

    Adjourned

    Judicial First Class Magistrate No.3, Kannur

  16. 16-Jan-2026

    Evidence closed. Call on

    Judicial First Class Magistrate No.3, Kannur

  17. 10-Dec-2025

    for evidence

    Judicial First Class Magistrate No.3, Kannur

  18. 08-Oct-2025

    for evidence

    Judicial First Class Magistrate No.3, Kannur

  19. 06-Aug-2025

    for evidence

    Judicial First Class Magistrate No.3, Kannur

  20. 13-Jun-2025

    for evidence

    Judicial First Class Magistrate No.3, Kannur

  21. 03-Jun-2025

    For framing of charge

    Judicial First Class Magistrate No.3, Kannur

  22. 20-May-2025

    remand Extended

    Judicial First Class Magistrate No.3, Kannur

  23. 06-May-2025

    call on

    Judicial First Class Magistrate No.3, Kannur

  24. 26-Mar-2025

    call on

    Judicial First Class Magistrate No.3, Kannur

  25. 27-Jan-2025

    call on

    Judicial First Class Magistrate No.3, Kannur

  26. 26-Nov-2024

    call on

    Judicial First Class Magistrate No.3, Kannur

  27. 25-Sep-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  28. 05-Aug-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1086/2024

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case