SIP vs Aswin Ganga — 200324/2019
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 457, 427. Disposed: Contested--AQUITTED U/S 248(1) CR.PC on 25th March 2026.
CC - CALENDAR CASE
CNR: KLTR200010742019
Filing Number
200324/2019
Filing Date
08-03-2019
Registration No
200324/2019
Registration Date
08-03-2019
Court
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur
Judge
1-MAGISTRATE KODUNGALLUR
Decision Date
25th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--AQUITTED U/S 248(1) CR.PC
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SIP (Sub-Inspector of Police)
Respondent(s)
Aswin Ganga
Hearing History
Judge: 1-MAGISTRATE KODUNGALLUR
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
For further hearing
No sitting notified
FOR HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 23-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 16-03-2026 | For further hearing |
| 10-02-2026 | No sitting notified |
| 23-01-2026 | FOR HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Case 200324/2019 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate acquitted Aswin Ganga of charges under IPC sections 457 (criminal trespass) and 427 (mischief) after finding the prosecution failed to establish his involvement beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: Although a bronze idol was stolen from Kuruppath Sree Bhadrakali Temple in February 2019 and later recovered from a canal, the prosecution provided no direct evidence linking the accused to the theft—no proof of forced entry, access to the temple sanctum, or circumstantial evidence connecting him to the crime. Suspicion alone cannot constitute conviction. Order: Bail bond cancelled; accused released unconditionally and property restored. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 200324/2019 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate acquitted Aswin Ganga of charges under IPC sections 457 (criminal trespass) and 427 (mischief) after finding the prosecution failed to establish his involvement beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: Although a bronze idol was stolen from Kuruppath Sree Bhadrakali Temple in February 2019 and later recovered from a canal, the prosecution provided no direct evidence linking the accused to the theft—no proof of forced entry, access to the temple sanctum, or circumstantial evidence connecting him to the crime. Suspicion alone cannot constitute conviction. Order: Bail bond cancelled; accused released unconditionally and property restored. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts