Sho vs Abdulla — 402133/2020
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 457,461,380r/w 34 ipc. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED U/S 271 BNSS on 23rd March 2026.
CC - CALENDAR CASE
CNR: KLTV350064012020
Filing Number
402133/2020
Filing Date
26-08-2020
Registration No
402133/2020
Registration Date
26-08-2020
Court
Judicial First class Magistrate Court 1 Nedumangadu
Judge
1-JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I NEDUMANGAD
Decision Date
23rd March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED U/S 271 BNSS
FIR Details
FIR Number
63
Police Station
Aryanad Police Station
Year
2003
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sho (Station House Officer)
Respondent(s)
Abdulla
Babu
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I NEDUMANGAD
Disposed
For Judgement
For Judgement
For Judgement
For verification
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 21-03-2026 | For Judgement |
| 17-03-2026 | For Judgement |
| 12-03-2026 | For Judgement |
| 26-02-2026 | For verification |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nedumangad acquitted the second accused (original third accused), Babu, of charges under IPC Sections 457, 461, and 380 read with Section 34, finding the prosecution failed to establish his involvement in a house breaking and theft case from 2003 beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that while the theft itself was proven through credible witness testimony, the critical evidence linking the accused to the crime—particularly the investigating officer's testimony—was absent, leaving insufficient circumstantial evidence to support conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nedumangad acquitted the second accused (original third accused), Babu, of charges under IPC Sections 457, 461, and 380 read with Section 34, finding the prosecution failed to establish his involvement in a house breaking and theft case from 2003 beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that while the theft itself was proven through credible witness testimony, the critical evidence linking the accused to the crime—particularly the investigating officer's testimony—was absent, leaving insufficient circumstantial evidence to support 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