SHO Karikkottakkari vs ANANDH BALAN Advocate - Manu Martin Thomas — 705/2025
Case under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act Section 6(1), 5j(ii), 5l, 4, 3(a). Disposed: Uncontested--ACQUITTED U/S 255 BNSS on 23rd March 2026.
SC - SESSIONS CASE
CNR: KLKN340000822025
Filing Number
705/2025
Filing Date
24-Oct-2025
Registration No
705/2025
Registration Date
29-Dec-2025
Court
Fast Track Special Court, Mattannur
Judge
1-Special Judge
Decision Date
23-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ACQUITTED U/S 255 BNSS
Last updated 10-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
608
Police Station
Karikottakari Police Station
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SHO (Station House Officer) Karikkottakkari
Adv. SHEENA P V(Spl. Public Prosecutor)
Respondent(s)
-
1.ANANDH BALAN Advocate - Manu Martin Thomas
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
23-Mar-2026
JudgementView PDF
Case Summary: Sessions Case No. 705/2025 The Fast Track Special Court acquitted Anandh Balan of sexual assault charges under the POCSO Act and BNS after finding the prosecution failed to prove the victim was a minor at the time of alleged sexual contact. The court determined the victim's age was the critical issue and rejected school records showing her birthdate as 11-01-2010 because the person who enrolled her had no special knowledge of her actual birthdate and was deceased. Both the victim and her sister testified the relationship was a lawful customary marriage performed after the victim attained 18 years, contradicting prosecution claims she was 15 years 8 months old. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
23-Mar-2026
Disposed
Special Judge
-
18-Mar-2026
Order/ Judgement
Special Judge
-
16-Mar-2026
Order/ Judgement
Special Judge
-
04-Mar-2026
for evidence
Special Judge
-
23-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
29-Jan-2026
Order
-
24-Oct-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 705/2025
Case Summary: Sessions Case No. 705/2025 The Fast Track Special Court acquitted Anandh Balan of sexual assault charges under the POCSO Act and BNS after finding the prosecution failed to prove the victim was a minor at the time of alleged sexual contact. The court determined the victim's age was the critical issue and rejected school records showing her birthdate as 11-01-2010 because the person who enrolled her had no special knowledge of her actual birthdate and was deceased. Both the victim and her sister testified the relationship was a lawful customary marriage performed after the victim attained 18 years, contradicting prosecution claims she was 15 years 8 months old. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts