Rugmini.K.R vs Sudhakaran Advocate - MUHAMMED ALI MATTAMTHADAM, MUHAMMED ALI MATTAMTHADAM — 700152/2023

Case under Ipc \ Section 341,323,447,427r/w149. Disposed: Contested--AQUITTED U/S 235 CR.PC on 23rd April 2026.

SC - SESSIONS CASE

CNR: KLPK180000362023

Case disposed

Filing Number

700035/2023

Filing Date

16-02-2023

Registration No

700152/2023

Registration Date

16-02-2023

Court

Special Court for SC ST cases Mannarkkad

Judge

1-Special Judge

Decision Date

23rd April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--AQUITTED U/S 235 CR.PC

FIR Details

FIR Number

80

Police Station

Sholayur PS

Year

2019

Acts & Sections

IPC \ Section 341,323,447,427r/w149
SC/ST(Prevention of attrocities) Act 1989\ Section 3(1)(s),3(2)(va)
Crl.MP/1095/2025 Classification :
Crl.MP/1097/2025 Classification : Section Sudhakaran
Crl.MP/1098/2025 Classification : Section Rugmini.K.RSudhakaran
Crl.MP/1183/2025 Classification : Absent Petition Section Rugmini.K.RSudhakaran
Crl.MP/1184/2025 Classification : Absent Petition Section Sudhakaran
Crl.MP/1397/2025 Classification : Absent Petition Section Sudhakaran
Crl.MP/1542/2025 Classification : Absent Petition
Crl.MP/1642/2025 Classification : Absent Petition Section SudhakaranRugmini.K.R
Crl.MP/1/2026 Classification : Absent Petition Section Rugmini.K.RSudhakaran
Crl.MP(Ab)/1/2026 Classification : Absent Petition Section Sudhakaran
Crl.MP(Ab)/2/2026 Classification : Absent Petition Section Sudhakaran
Crl.MP/2/2026 Classification : Petition Section Rugmini.K.RSudhakaran
Crl.MP(Ab)/3/2026 Classification : Absent Petition Section Rugmini.K.RSulaiman

Petitioner(s)

Rugmini.K.R

Adv. PP

Respondent(s)

Sudhakaran Advocate - MUHAMMED ALI MATTAMTHADAM, MUHAMMED ALI MATTAMTHADAM

Firoz

Adv. MUHAMMED ALI MATTAMTHADAM,MUHAMMED NOUFAL K

Shemeer

Adv. MUHAMMED ALI MATTAMTHADAM,MUHAMMED NOUFAL K

Harshad

Adv. MUHAMMED ALI MATTAMTHADAM,MUHAMMED NOUFAL K

Aboobakker,

Adv. MUHAMMED ALI MATTAMTHADAM,MUHAMMED NOUFAL K

Sidhik

Adv. MUHAMMED ALI MATTAMTHADAM,MUHAMMED NOUFAL K

Sulaiman

Adv. MUHAMMED ALI MATTAMTHADAM,MUHAMMED NOUFAL K

Mallika

Adv. MUHAMMED ALI MATTAMTHADAM,MUHAMMED NOUFAL K

Sebiya

Adv. MUHAMMED ALI MATTAMTHADAM,MUHAMMED NOUFAL K

Selma

Adv. MUHAMMED ALI MATTAMTHADAM,MUHAMMED NOUFAL K

Fareedha

Adv. MUHAMMED ALI MATTAMTHADAM,MUHAMMED NOUFAL K

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Special Judge

23-04-2026

Disposed

17-04-2026

Order/ Judgement

27-03-2026

For further hearing

23-03-2026

FOR HEARING

12-03-2026

Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC

Final Orders / Judgements

23-04-2026
Judgement

Case Summary: Sessions Case No. 152/2023 Court Decision: All 11 accused were acquitted of charges under IPC sections 341, 323, 447, 427 r/w 34 and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va). Key Reasoning: The court found the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, primarily because: (1) the caste identity of the actual victims (the complainant's parents) was not established with documentary evidence—critical for SC/ST Act charges; (2) key witness evidence was inconsistent and contradicted by defense witness testimony; (3) the underlying dispute was civil in nature involving a long-standing property/pathway rights dispute, making criminal trespass charges unfounded; and (4) conflicting witness accounts created reasonable doubt favoring the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Sessions Case No. 152/2023 Court Decision: All 11 accused were acquitted of charges under IPC sections 341, 323, 447, 427 r/w 34 and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va). Key Reasoning: The court found the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, primarily because: (1) the caste identity of the actual victims (the complainant's parents) was not established with documentary evidence—critical for SC/ST Act charges; (2) key witness evidence was inconsistent and contradicted by defense witness testimony; (3) the underlying dispute was civil in nature involving a long-standing property/pathway rights dispute, making criminal trespass charges unfounded; and (4) conflicting witness accounts created reasonable doubt favoring the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Special Court for SC ST cases Mannarkkad All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case