SHO, Taliparamba Police Station vs Prasanth k Advocate - P M Sajitha — 18/2025
Case under Ipc \ Section 376(2((n),506,420. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED U/S 258 BNSS on 26th March 2026.
SC - SESSIONS CASE
CNR: KLKN290000382025
Filing Number
19/2020
Filing Date
14-01-2025
Registration No
18/2025
Registration Date
10-04-2025
Court
Fast Track special Court POCSO ,Taliparamba
Judge
1-Special Judge (Fast Track Special Court)
Decision Date
26th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED U/S 258 BNSS
FIR Details
FIR Number
573
Police Station
THALIPARAMBA PS
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SHO (Station House Officer), Taliparamba Police Station
Respondent(s)
Prasanth k Advocate - P M Sajitha
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Special Judge (Fast Track Special Court)
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
Order/ Judgement
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 26-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 21-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 13-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 06-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 28-02-2026 | FOR HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Sessions Case No. 18/2025 Court Decision: The accused, Prasanth K., was acquitted of all charges under IPC sections 376(2)(n) (rape), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 420 (cheating). The court found the victim's conduct—voluntarily traveling with and staying in hotel rooms with the accused across multiple trips—inconsistent with rape allegations, concluding the sexual acts reflected passive consent rather than non-consensual intercourse. Absent medical evidence and given the victim's failure to avoid harmful situations when opportunity existed, the prosecution failed to prove "against her will" and "without consent" elements required for rape conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Sessions Case No. 18/2025 Court Decision: The accused, Prasanth K., was acquitted of all charges under IPC sections 376(2)(n) (rape), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 420 (cheating). The court found the victim's conduct—voluntarily traveling with and staying in hotel rooms with the accused across multiple trips—inconsistent with rape allegations, concluding the sexual acts reflected passive consent rather than non-consensual intercourse. Absent medical evidence and given the victim's failure to avoid harmful situations when opportunity existed, the prosecution failed to prove "against her will" and "without consent" elements required for rape 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