SIP vs Disang — 200324/2020

Case under Ipc \ Section 447,427,34. Disposed: Contested--AQUITTED on 01st April 2026.

ST - SUMMARY TRIAL

CNR: KLTR200005332020

Case disposed

Filing Number

200324/2020

Filing Date

29-01-2020

Registration No

200324/2020

Registration Date

29-01-2020

Court

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur

Judge

1-MAGISTRATE KODUNGALLUR

Decision Date

01st April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--AQUITTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

363

Police Station

VALAPPAD

Year

2019

Acts & Sections

IPC \ Section 447,427,34

Petitioner(s)

SIP (Sub-Inspector of Police)

Respondent(s)

Disang

Rahul@ Akru

Harikrishnan,

Hearing History

Judge: 1-MAGISTRATE KODUNGALLUR

01-04-2026

Disposed

30-03-2026

Order/ Judgement

24-03-2026

For further hearing

16-03-2026

For further hearing

10-03-2026

For further hearing

Final Orders / Judgements

01-04-2026
Judgement

Case Summary: ST. 324 OF 2020 The court acquitted all three accused (Disang, Rahul @ Akru, and Harikrishnan) of charges under IPC Sections 447 and 427 r/w 34 for alleged criminal trespass and mischief involving stone-pelting at a house in Valapad Village on 27.07.2019. The magistrate found the prosecution's case insufficient because none of the witnesses actually witnessed the stone-pelting incident or identified the accused at the scene; their testimony covered only the aftermath (damage to property). The court determined the chain of circumstances was incomplete and incapable of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: ST. 324 OF 2020 The court acquitted all three accused (Disang, Rahul @ Akru, and Harikrishnan) of charges under IPC Sections 447 and 427 r/w 34 for alleged criminal trespass and mischief involving stone-pelting at a house in Valapad Village on 27.07.2019. The magistrate found the prosecution's case insufficient because none of the witnesses actually witnessed the stone-pelting incident or identified the accused at the scene; their testimony covered only the aftermath (damage to property). The court determined the chain of circumstances was incomplete and incapable of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case