State of Kerala vs Vinod — 200204/2011
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 341,323,324,308,34. Disposed: Contested--AQUITTED on 10th April 2026.
SC - SESSIONS CASE
CNR: KLTV330003762011
Filing Number
200204/2011
Filing Date
07-04-2011
Registration No
200204/2011
Registration Date
07-04-2011
Court
Sub Court Nedumangadu
Judge
1-SUB JUDGE AND ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE NEDUMANGAD
Decision Date
10th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--AQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
209
Police Station
Vattiyoorkavu Police Station
Year
2008
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala
Respondent(s)
Vinod
Sreeraj @ Kannan
Sreejith @ Unni
Gireesh
Hearing History
Judge: 1-SUB JUDGE AND ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE NEDUMANGAD
Disposed
For Judgment
remand Extended
For further hearing
For further hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 06-04-2026 | For Judgment |
| 27-03-2026 | remand Extended |
| 13-03-2026 | For further hearing |
| 27-02-2026 | For further hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State of Kerala v. Vinod & Others (SC 204/2011) The Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted all four accused (Vinod, Sreeraj @ Kannan, Sreejith @ Unni, and Gireesh) of charges under IPC sections 341, 323, 324, and 308 r/w s.34, finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court identified critical inconsistencies in witness testimony—particularly conflicting versions about the number of assailants (8 vs. 4) and PW1's contradictory account of witnessing PW2's assault—coupled with the non-recovery of the alleged weapon (iron rod) and medical evidence suggesting injuries could result from accidental falls, warranting acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State of Kerala v. Vinod & Others (SC 204/2011) The Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted all four accused (Vinod, Sreeraj @ Kannan, Sreejith @ Unni, and Gireesh) of charges under IPC sections 341, 323, 324, and 308 r/w s.34, finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court identified critical inconsistencies in witness testimony—particularly conflicting versions about the number of assailants (8 vs. 4) and PW1's contradictory account of witnessing PW2's assault—coupled with the non-recovery of the alleged weapon (iron rod) and medical evidence suggesting injuries could result from accidental falls, warranting acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts