State of Kerala - Karukachal Police vs Bindhu Mathew(W/o. Mathew Chacko, Muthumarathil (H) — 983/2017

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 447,294(b),323,324,34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 30th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CALENDAR CASE

CNR: KLKT190033862025

Filing Number

305385/2025

Filing Date

21-Jan-2017

Registration No

983/2017

Registration Date

24-May-2025

Court

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-2, Kanjirappally

Judge

1-Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

Decision Date

30-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 10-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

1954

Police Station

Karukachal Police Station

Year

2016

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 447,294(b),323,324,34

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Kerala - Karukachal Police

    Adv. Government Advocate, Kanjirappally

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Bindhu Mathew(W/o. Mathew Chacko, Muthumarathil (H)

  2. 2.Marykkutty (W/o. Chacko mathai, Muthumarathil(H),

    Adv. SHAJI M A

  3. 3.Albert (Jith), S/o. Mathew Chacko, Muthumarathil(H), Chambackara

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 30-Mar-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    The court acquitted all three accused persons of charges under IPC sections 294(b), 323, 324, and 447 r/w 34, finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Key weaknesses included: crucial occurrence witnesses turning hostile, the complainant's failure to specify obscene words uttered, the stick used not qualifying as a "dangerous weapon" required under section 324, and the existence of a counter-case suggesting mutual conflict, warranting benefit of doubt for the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  4. 25-Mar-2026

    Order/Judgement

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  5. 16-Mar-2026

    For Appearance of Accused

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  6. 11-Mar-2026

    For Appearance of Accused

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  7. 05-Mar-2026

    Adjourned

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  8. 27-Feb-2026

    Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  9. 11-Feb-2026

    To Summon Witness

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  10. 28-Jan-2026

    To Summon Witness

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  11. 20-Jan-2026

    To Summon Witness

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  12. 18-Dec-2025

    For Appearance of Accused

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  13. 02-Dec-2025

    NBW to Cws

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  14. 28-Nov-2025

    NBW to Cws

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  15. 11-Nov-2025

    Adjourned

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  16. 24-Oct-2025

    NBW to Cws

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  17. 09-Oct-2025

    BW to Cws

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  18. 25-Sep-2025

    To Summon Witness

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  19. 10-Sep-2025

    Call On

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  20. 29-Aug-2025

    Issues

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  21. 11-Aug-2025

    Issues

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  22. 08-Aug-2025

    To Summon Witness

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  23. 09-Jul-2025

    NBW to Cws

    Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Kanjirappally

  24. 24-May-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  25. 21-Jan-2017

    Case filed

    Registration No. 983/2017

casestatus.in Summary

The court acquitted all three accused persons of charges under IPC sections 294(b), 323, 324, and 447 r/w 34, finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Key weaknesses included: crucial occurrence witnesses turning hostile, the complainant's failure to specify obscene words uttered, the stick used not qualifying as a "dangerous weapon" required under section 324, and the existence of a counter-case suggesting mutual conflict, warranting benefit of doubt for the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case