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.
SC - SESSIONS CASE
CNR: KLKN340000692025
Filing Number
484/2025
Filing Date
19-08-2025
Registration No
484/2025
Registration Date
20-08-2025
Court
Fast Track Special Court, Mattannur
Judge
1-Special Judge
Decision Date
31st March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED U/S 258 BNSS
FIR Details
FIR Number
379
Police Station
Aralam Police Station
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala Police
Adv. SHEENA P V(Spl. Public Prosecutor)
Respondent(s)
Jibin G.P Advocate - MANOJ PETER
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Special Judge
Disposed
Order/Judgement
Examination of the Accused U/S 351 BNSS
for evidence
for evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 31-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 25-03-2026 | Order/Judgement |
| 24-03-2026 | Examination of the Accused U/S 351 BNSS |
| 23-03-2026 | for evidence |
| 16-03-2026 | for evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
Interim Orders
Order
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts