SHO,ATTINGAL vs AKHIL — 401120/2017

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 294(b),323,324,452,506(1),354,34. Disposed: Contested--AQUITTED on 31st March 2026.

CC - CALENDAR CASE

CNR: KLTV440018012017

Case disposed

Filing Number

401120/2017

Filing Date

07-07-2017

Registration No

401120/2017

Registration Date

07-07-2017

Court

Judicial First class Magistrate Court 1 Attingal

Judge

1-JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I ATTINGAL

Decision Date

31st March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--AQUITTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

2121

Police Station

Attingal Police Station

Year

2016

Acts & Sections

IPC Section 294(b),323,324,452,506(1),354,34
Crl.MP/1/2026 Classification : Advance Application Section SHO,ATTINGALAKHIL

Petitioner(s)

SHO,ATTINGAL

Respondent(s)

AKHIL

MANU

BABU

Hearing History

Judge: 1-JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I ATTINGAL

31-03-2026

Disposed

26-03-2026

For further hearing

25-03-2026

Order/ Judgement

12-03-2026

FOR HEARING

03-02-2026

FOR HEARING

Final Orders / Judgements

31-03-2026
Judgement

Court Decision Summary The Judicial I Class Magistrate-I, Attingal acquitted all three accused of charges under IPC sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 452, 506(i), 354, and 34 on March 31, 2026. The court found critical discrepancies in prosecution evidence, including conflicting accounts about the weapon used, inability to explain how witnesses identified the accused despite claiming no prior acquaintance, and lack of proof for several charged offenses. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Judicial I Class Magistrate-I, Attingal acquitted all three accused of charges under IPC sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 452, 506(i), 354, and 34 on March 31, 2026. The court found critical discrepancies in prosecution evidence, including conflicting accounts about the weapon used, inability to explain how witnesses identified the accused despite claiming no prior acquaintance, and lack of proof for several charged offenses. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Judicial First class Magistrate Court 1 Attingal All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case