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

Case disposed

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

IPC 1860 Section 323,447

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

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

28-04-2026
Judgement

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.

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.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court 3 Kannur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case