State of Kerala - Pallikkathode Police vs Jithu Prakash (Appu) — 100339/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 376. Disposed: Uncontested--ACQUITTED U/S 255 BNSS on 28th April 2026.
SC - SESSIONS CASE
CNR: KLKT320000562025
Filing Number
1000006/2025
Filing Date
08-05-2025
Registration No
100339/2025
Registration Date
08-05-2025
Court
Fast Track Special Court Changanassery
Judge
1-Special Judge Fast Track Special Court Changanassery
Decision Date
28th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ACQUITTED U/S 255 BNSS
FIR Details
FIR Number
118
Police Station
Pallikkathode Police Station
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala - Pallikkathode Police
Adv. Special Public Prosecutor, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO) Changanassery
Respondent(s)
Jithu Prakash (Appu)
Sulekha T K
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Special Judge Fast Track Special Court Changanassery
Disposed
For hearing under section 255 BNSS
For hearing under section 255 BNSS
Call On
Call On
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 27-04-2026 | For hearing under section 255 BNSS |
| 20-04-2026 | For hearing under section 255 BNSS |
| 01-04-2026 | Call On |
| 26-03-2026 | Call On |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State of Kerala v. Jithu Prakash & Sulekha T K (Case 339/2025) The court acquitted both accused of sexual assault and related charges under BNS and POCSO Act. The victim (PW1), the key witness, testified she did not remember giving her initial statement to police, denied allegations against the accused, and failed to corroborate prosecution claims. The court found no credible evidence of the alleged offences despite pending DNA reports, holding that DNA evidence alone cannot establish guilt without supporting testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State of Kerala v. Jithu Prakash & Sulekha T K (Case 339/2025) The court acquitted both accused of sexual assault and related charges under BNS and POCSO Act. The victim (PW1), the key witness, testified she did not remember giving her initial statement to police, denied allegations against the accused, and failed to corroborate prosecution claims. The court found no credible evidence of the alleged offences despite pending DNA reports, holding that DNA evidence alone cannot establish guilt without supporting testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts