State of Kerala - Ponkunnam Police vs Sajin Sabu Advocate - SATHEESHCHANDRAN NAIR P — 100399/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 376(1)(2)(f),376(3),354(D),323,506(2). Disposed: Uncontested--AQUITTED U/S 232 CR.PC on 29th April 2026.
SC - SESSIONS CASE
CNR: KLKT320000602025
Filing Number
1000010/2025
Filing Date
11-06-2025
Registration No
100399/2025
Registration Date
13-06-2025
Court
Fast Track Special Court Changanassery
Judge
1-Special Judge Fast Track Special Court Changanassery
Decision Date
29th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--AQUITTED U/S 232 CR.PC
FIR Details
FIR Number
394
Police Station
Ponkunnam Police Station
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala - Ponkunnam Police
Adv. Special Public Prosecutor, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO) Changanassery
Respondent(s)
Sajin Sabu Advocate - SATHEESHCHANDRAN NAIR P
Ammini Amma
Adv. Remin Rajan,Remin Rajan
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Special Judge Fast Track Special Court Changanassery
Disposed
For Hearing Under Section 232 Cr.PC
For Hearing Under Section 232 Cr.PC
To Summon Witness
Call On
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 27-04-2026 | For Hearing Under Section 232 Cr.PC |
| 20-04-2026 | For Hearing Under Section 232 Cr.PC |
| 01-04-2026 | To Summon Witness |
| 30-03-2026 | Call On |
Final Orders / Judgements
Both accused—Sajin Sabu (age 27) and Ammini Amma (age 61)—were acquitted of all charges under the POCSO Act and IPC sections including sexual assault, outraging modesty, and criminal intimidation. The court found that the sole prosecution witness (the victim) disowned her initial statement, categorically denied the sexual assault allegations, and failed to support the prosecution case, resulting in no credible evidence to connect either accused to the offences. Their bail bonds were cancelled and they were released. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Both accused—Sajin Sabu (age 27) and Ammini Amma (age 61)—were acquitted of all charges under the POCSO Act and IPC sections including sexual assault, outraging modesty, and criminal intimidation. The court found that the sole prosecution witness (the victim) disowned her initial statement, categorically denied the sexual assault allegations, and failed to support the prosecution case, resulting in no credible evidence to connect either accused to the offences. Their bail bonds were cancelled and they were released. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts