SIP vs Biju Advocate - D.T.Venkideswaran — 201138/2018
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 341,323,294(b). Disposed: Contested--AQUITTED on 16th March 2026.
ST - SUMMARY TRIAL
CNR: KLTR200026632018
Filing Number
201138/2018
Filing Date
08-08-2018
Registration No
201138/2018
Registration Date
08-08-2018
Court
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur
Judge
1-MAGISTRATE KODUNGALLUR
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--AQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
422
Police Station
MATHILAKAM
Year
2018
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SIP (Sub-Inspector of Police)
Respondent(s)
Biju Advocate - D.T.Venkideswaran
Hearing History
Judge: 1-MAGISTRATE KODUNGALLUR
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 20-02-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 28-01-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 06-01-2026 | FOR HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: ST. 1138 OF 2018 Court Decision: The accused, Biju (age 42), was acquitted of all charges under IPC sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 294(b) (obscene words in public). Key Reasoning: The court found critical inconsistencies between the complainant's testimony and medical evidence. While PW1 claimed the accused slapped him on the left cheek and kicked his abdomen with a shoe-wearing foot, the medical certificate documented tenderness only on the left forehead and back of the chest—not matching the alleged assault locations. Additionally, the complainant materially improved his version during trial (adding the "shoe-wearing foot" detail) after initially omitting it in the FIR statement and police questioning. The sole eyewitness turned hostile, and unexplained procedural delays further weakened the prosecution's case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: ST. 1138 OF 2018 Court Decision: The accused, Biju (age 42), was acquitted of all charges under IPC sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 294(b) (obscene words in public). Key Reasoning: The court found critical inconsistencies between the complainant's testimony and medical evidence. While PW1 claimed the accused slapped him on the left cheek and kicked his abdomen with a shoe-wearing foot, the medical certificate documented tenderness only on the left forehead and back of the chest—not matching the alleged assault locations. Additionally, the complainant materially improved his version during trial (adding the "shoe-wearing foot" detail) after initially omitting it in the FIR statement and police questioning. The sole eyewitness turned hostile, and unexplained procedural delays further weakened the prosecution's case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts