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.

Case disposed

ST - SUMMARY TRIAL

CNR: KLTR200026632018

Filing Number

201138/2018

Filing Date

08-Aug-2018

Registration No

201138/2018

Registration Date

08-Aug-2018

Court

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur

Judge

1-Magistrate Kodungallur

Decision Date

16-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--AQUITTED

Last updated 15-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

422

Police Station

MATHILAKAM

Year

2018

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 341,323,294(b)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SIP (Sub-Inspector of Police)

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Biju Advocate - D.T.Venkideswaran

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Mar-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    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.

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    Order/ Judgement

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  5. 20-Feb-2026

    For Hearing

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  6. 28-Jan-2026

    For Hearing

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  7. 06-Jan-2026

    For Hearing

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  8. 19-Dec-2025

    For Hearing

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  9. 16-Dec-2025

    For Hearing

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  10. 26-Nov-2025

    For reports

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  11. 14-Nov-2025

    For Hearing

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  12. 29-Oct-2025

    For Hearing

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  13. 16-Oct-2025

    For Hearing

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  14. 09-Oct-2025

    For Hearing

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  15. 19-Sep-2025

    For Hearing

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  16. 15-Sep-2025

    No sitting notified

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  17. 03-Sep-2025

    For Hearing

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  18. 18-Aug-2025

    Defence Evidence

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  19. 04-Aug-2025

    Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  20. 16-Jul-2025

    Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  21. 20-Jun-2025

    82-83 Steps

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  22. 08-May-2025

    82-83 Steps

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  23. 02-Apr-2025

    82-83 Steps

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  24. 03-Mar-2025

    82-83 Steps

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  25. 31-Jan-2025

    82-83 Steps

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  26. 24-Dec-2024

    82-83 Steps

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  27. 10-Dec-2024

    82-83 Steps

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  28. 04-Nov-2024

    82-83 Steps

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  29. 24-Sep-2024

    No sitting notified

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  30. 07-Aug-2024

    82-83 Steps

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  31. 01-Jul-2024

    82-83 Steps

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  32. 18-Apr-2024

    No sitting notified

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  33. 27-Mar-2024

    82-83 Steps

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  34. 14-Feb-2024

    82-83 Steps

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  35. 08-Jan-2024

    82-83 Steps

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  36. 21-Nov-2023

    82-83 Steps

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  37. 05-Oct-2023

    82-83 Steps

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  38. 18-Aug-2023

    82-83 Steps

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  39. 07-Jul-2023

    82-83 Steps

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  40. 29-May-2023

    82-83 Steps

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  41. 05-Apr-2023

    82-83 Steps

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  42. 22-Feb-2023

    82-83 Steps

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  43. 25-Nov-2022

    NBW to cws

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  44. 29-Aug-2022

    To summon witness

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  45. 29-Apr-2022

    Issue Summons

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  46. 13-Jan-2022

    Issue Summons

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  47. 28-Jun-2021

    Adjourned

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  48. 12-Mar-2021

    Adjourned

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  49. 21-Nov-2020

    Call on

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  50. 07-Oct-2020

    Call on

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  51. 15-Jul-2020

    Call on

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  52. 13-Apr-2020

    No sitting notified

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  53. 22-Feb-2020

    No sitting notified

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  54. 07-Dec-2019

    Call on

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  55. 27-Jun-2019

    Call on

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  56. 19-Mar-2019

    To record plea of the accused

    Magistrate Kodungallur

  57. 22-Dec-2018

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  58. 08-Aug-2018

    Case filed

    Registration No. 201138/2018

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case