State of Kerala (Police) vs Abhijith Advocate - Saji Joseph — 4000644/2024
Case under Ipc \ Section 354(c),447. Disposed: Contested--AQUITTED on 18th March 2026.
SC - SESSIONS CASE
CNR: KLTR400000282024
Filing Number
4000644/2024
Filing Date
12-06-2024
Registration No
4000644/2024
Registration Date
12-06-2024
Court
FTSC, Thrissur
Judge
1-Special Judge Fast Track Special Court (POCSO)
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--AQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
44
Police Station
VIYYUR
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala (Police)
Adv. Liji Madhu
Respondent(s)
Abhijith Advocate - Saji Joseph
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Special Judge Fast Track Special Court (POCSO)
Disposed
Order/Judgement
Order/ Judgement
FOR HEARING
Defence Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Order/Judgement |
| 12-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 09-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 07-03-2026 | Defence Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: State of Kerala v. Abhijith (Case 4000644/2024) The Fast Track Special Court in Thrissur acquitted 22-year-old Abhijith of charges under IPC sections 354(c), 447, IT Act 66E, and PoCSO Act sections 12 r/w 11(iv). The court found that while a 17-year-old survivor saw a hand with a phone recording her while bathing on 13.01.2024, the RFSL report recovered no nude images/videos from the accused's seized mobile phone, and the survivor never directly identified the accused—only suspecting him based on his indifferent behavior afterward. The court held that mere suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing established legal principles that circumstances must exclude every alternative hypothesis to justify conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State of Kerala v. Abhijith (Case 4000644/2024) The Fast Track Special Court in Thrissur acquitted 22-year-old Abhijith of charges under IPC sections 354(c), 447, IT Act 66E, and PoCSO Act sections 12 r/w 11(iv). The court found that while a 17-year-old survivor saw a hand with a phone recording her while bathing on 13.01.2024, the RFSL report recovered no nude images/videos from the accused's seized mobile phone, and the survivor never directly identified the accused—only suspecting him based on his indifferent behavior afterward. The court held that mere suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing established legal principles that circumstances must exclude every alternative hypothesis to justify conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts