State of Kerala Police vs NARAYANAPANICKER Advocate - APPACHANKUTTY M M — 100226/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 285,268,278,290,336. Disposed: Contested--AQUITTED on 28th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CALENDAR CASE

CNR: KLAL320010482024

e-Filing Number

09-04-2024

Filing Number

101045/2024

Filing Date

24-Apr-2024

Registration No

100226/2024

Registration Date

24-Apr-2024

Court

JFCM Ramankary

Judge

1-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

Decision Date

28-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--AQUITTED

Last updated 15-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

158

Police Station

Pulinkunnu Police Station

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 285,268,278,290,336

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Kerala Police

    Adv. Asst. Public Prosecutor, Ramankari

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.NARAYANAPANICKER Advocate - APPACHANKUTTY M M

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 28-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  3. 27-Mar-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    The Judicial First Class Magistrate acquitted Narayanapanicker of charges under IPC sections 285, 268, 278, 290, and 336 (fire endangerment and negligence offenses). The court found critical inconsistencies in prosecution witness testimonies regarding property ownership, fire origin, and damage extent, and noted that key witnesses neither saw the accused set fire nor directly witnessed fire transmission between properties. The court held the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 27-Mar-2026

    Order/ Judgement

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  5. 23-Mar-2026

    For further hearing

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  6. 21-Mar-2026

    No sitting notified

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  7. 16-Mar-2026

    No sitting notified

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  8. 05-Mar-2026

    For Hearing

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  9. 25-Feb-2026

    For Hearing

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  10. 21-Feb-2026

    For Hearing

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  11. 19-Feb-2026

    Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  12. 10-Feb-2026

    for evidence.

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  13. 27-Jan-2026

    for evidence.

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  14. 13-Jan-2026

    for evidence.

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  15. 01-Jan-2026

    for evidence.

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  16. 02-Dec-2025

    for evidence.

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  17. 18-Nov-2025

    for evidence.

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  18. 13-Oct-2025

    for evidence.

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  19. 02-Sep-2025

    for evidence.

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  20. 25-Jul-2025

    Bound over

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  21. 17-Jun-2025

    BW to cws

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  22. 21-May-2025

    for evidence.

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  23. 19-Mar-2025

    Issue summonsed to accused

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  24. 13-Feb-2025

    To record plea of the accused

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  25. 12-Dec-2024

    Call on

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  26. 25-Oct-2024

    Issue summonsed to accused

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  27. 24-Aug-2024

    No sitting notified

    Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankary

  28. 06-Jun-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  29. 24-Apr-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 100226/2024

casestatus.in Summary

The Judicial First Class Magistrate acquitted Narayanapanicker of charges under IPC sections 285, 268, 278, 290, and 336 (fire endangerment and negligence offenses). The court found critical inconsistencies in prosecution witness testimonies regarding property ownership, fire origin, and damage extent, and noted that key witnesses neither saw the accused set fire nor directly witnessed fire transmission between properties. The court held the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case