State of Kerala Police vs Jibin G.P Advocate - MANOJ PETER — 484/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 64(1)(2)(f)(h)(m),69,137(1)(b),137(2). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED U/S 258 BNSS on 31st March 2026.

Case disposed

SC - SESSIONS CASE

CNR: KLKN340000692025

Filing Number

484/2025

Filing Date

19-Aug-2025

Registration No

484/2025

Registration Date

20-Aug-2025

Court

Fast Track Special Court, Mattannur

Judge

1-Special Judge

Decision Date

31-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED U/S 258 BNSS

Last updated 10-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

379

Police Station

Aralam Police Station

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 64(1)(2)(f)(h)(m),69,137(1)(b),137(2)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act Section Sec 6r/w 5(j)(ii)(1)(n)(p)(9)
Crl.mp/10047/2025 (300050892025) Classification : Section State of Kerala Police

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Kerala Police

    Adv. SHEENA P V(Spl. Public Prosecutor)

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Jibin G.P Advocate - MANOJ PETER

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 31-Mar-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Case Summary: Sessions Case No. 484/2025 Jibin G.P was acquitted of charges under the POCSO Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha for allegedly sexually assaulting a 17-year-old minor. The court found that the victim (PW1) did not deny consensual sexual intercourse and claimed a lawful customary marriage with the accused performed after attaining majority. The judge rejected the prosecution's birth certificate evidence showing her date of birth as 21-10-2007 due to suspicious discrepancies (address contradictions and common names), while accepting PW1's testimony that she was born in 2006 and was 18 at marriage. The court ruled the prosecution failed to prove the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged assault, thereby lacking the foundation for child sexual abuse charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 31-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Special Judge

  4. 25-Mar-2026

    Order/Judgement

    Special Judge

  5. 24-Mar-2026

    Examination of the Accused U/S 351 Bnss

    Special Judge

  6. 23-Mar-2026

    for evidence

    Special Judge

  7. 16-Mar-2026

    for evidence

    Special Judge

  8. 04-Mar-2026

    for evidence

    Special Judge

  9. 25-Feb-2026

    for evidence

    Special Judge

  10. 18-Feb-2026

    for evidence

    Special Judge

  11. 09-Feb-2026

    Repeat Summons

    Special Judge

  12. 03-Feb-2026

    for evidence

    Special Judge

  13. 19-Jan-2026

    for evidence

    Special Judge

  14. 13-Jan-2026

    for evidence

    Special Judge

  15. 17-Dec-2025

    for evidence

    Special Judge

  16. 02-Dec-2025

    for evidence

    Special Judge

  17. 18-Nov-2025

    For framing charge

    Special Judge

  18. 11-Nov-2025

    For framing charge

    Special Judge

  19. 05-Nov-2025

    For preliminery hearing of charge

    Special Judge

  20. 28-Oct-2025

    For production of accused

    Special Judge

  21. 22-Oct-2025

    Call on

    Special Judge

  22. 03-Oct-2025

    Adjourned

    Special Judge

  23. 22-Sep-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  24. 22-Aug-2025

    Order

  25. 19-Aug-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 484/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Sessions Case No. 484/2025 Jibin G.P was acquitted of charges under the POCSO Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha for allegedly sexually assaulting a 17-year-old minor. The court found that the victim (PW1) did not deny consensual sexual intercourse and claimed a lawful customary marriage with the accused performed after attaining majority. The judge rejected the prosecution's birth certificate evidence showing her date of birth as 21-10-2007 due to suspicious discrepancies (address contradictions and common names), while accepting PW1's testimony that she was born in 2006 and was 18 at marriage. The court ruled the prosecution failed to prove the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged assault, thereby lacking the foundation for child sexual abuse charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case