State of Kerala - Karukachal Police vs Aseena — 991/2017
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 451, 323, 34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 23rd March 2026.
CC - CALENDAR CASE
CNR: KLKT190040322025
Filing Number
5891/2025
Filing Date
21-06-2025
Registration No
991/2017
Registration Date
06-10-2017
Court
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-2, Kanjirappally
Judge
1-JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE - II, KANJIRAPPALLY
Decision Date
23rd March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
55
Police Station
Karukachal Police Station
Year
2013
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala - Karukachal Police
Adv. Assistant Public Prosecutor, JFCM 2, Kanjirappally
Respondent(s)
Aseena
Aneesh
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE - II, KANJIRAPPALLY
Disposed
Order/Judgement
For Hearing
For Hearing
Adjourned
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 17-03-2026 | Order/Judgement |
| 16-03-2026 | For Hearing |
| 11-03-2026 | For Hearing |
| 02-03-2026 | Adjourned |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of CC No. 991/2017 The court acquitted the first accused (Aseena) of charges under IPC sections 323, 451 r/w 34 (causing hurt and criminal trespass) due to significant discrepancies and contradictions in prosecution witness statements, lack of recovered material objects, and the possibility of false implication arising from civil disputes. The second accused's case was split up as he did not appear. The court applied the principle that guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and granted the accused the benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of CC No. 991/2017 The court acquitted the first accused (Aseena) of charges under IPC sections 323, 451 r/w 34 (causing hurt and criminal trespass) due to significant discrepancies and contradictions in prosecution witness statements, lack of recovered material objects, and the possibility of false implication arising from civil disputes. The second accused's case was split up as he did not appear. The court applied the principle that guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and granted the accused the benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts