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.
CC - CALENDAR CASE
CNR: KLKT190033862025
Filing Number
305385/2025
Filing Date
21-01-2017
Registration No
983/2017
Registration Date
24-05-2025
Court
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-2, Kanjirappally
Judge
1-JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE - II, KANJIRAPPALLY
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
1954
Police Station
Karukachal Police Station
Year
2016
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Kerala - Karukachal Police
Adv. Government Advocate, Kanjirappally
Respondent(s)
Bindhu Mathew(W/o. Mathew Chacko, Muthumarathil (H)
Marykkutty (W/o. Chacko mathai, Muthumarathil(H),
Adv. SHAJI M A
Albert (Jith), S/o. Mathew Chacko, Muthumarathil(H), Chambackara
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE - II, KANJIRAPPALLY
Disposed
Order/Judgement
For Appearance of Accused
For Appearance of Accused
Adjourned
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 25-03-2026 | Order/Judgement |
| 16-03-2026 | For Appearance of Accused |
| 11-03-2026 | For Appearance of Accused |
| 05-03-2026 | Adjourned |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts