State of Kerala (Police) vs MADONA Advocate - BENNY KURIAN KOCHERI, BENNY KURIAN KOCHERI — 1059/2023
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 341,323,294(b),34. Disposed: Uncontested--AQUITTED on 24th March 2026.
CC - CALENDAR CASE
CNR: KLKN230038082023
e-Filing Number
26-07-2023
Filing Number
3784/2023
Filing Date
18-08-2023
Registration No
1059/2023
Registration Date
18-08-2023
Court
Juditial First Class Magistrate Court Kuthuparamba
Judge
2-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kuthuparamba
Decision Date
24th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--AQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
547
Police Station
kelakam Police Station
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala (Police)
Respondent(s)
MADONA Advocate - BENNY KURIAN KOCHERI, BENNY KURIAN KOCHERI
THANKAMMA
Adv. BENNY KURIAN KOCHERI,BENNY KURIAN KOCHERI
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kuthuparamba
Disposed
For Judgement
Defence Evidence
repeat summons
for evidence.
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 21-03-2026 | For Judgement |
| 16-03-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 13-02-2026 | repeat summons |
| 27-01-2026 | for evidence. |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: CC 1059/2023 The Judicial First Class Magistrate Kuthuparamba acquitted both accused persons (Madona and Thankamma) of charges under IPC sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 294(b) (obscene words in public). The prosecution witnesses testified inconsistently and failed to establish guilt: PW1 admitted having no eyewitness knowledge and stated the matter was settled, while PW2 could not identify the assailants, and other witnesses confirmed they did not witness the alleged incident. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: CC 1059/2023 The Judicial First Class Magistrate Kuthuparamba acquitted both accused persons (Madona and Thankamma) of charges under IPC sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 294(b) (obscene words in public). The prosecution witnesses testified inconsistently and failed to establish guilt: PW1 admitted having no eyewitness knowledge and stated the matter was settled, while PW2 could not identify the assailants, and other witnesses confirmed they did not witness the alleged incident. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts