SIP vs NARAYANANKUTTI — 200584/2019
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 143,147,447,427,294,34. Disposed: Uncontested--AQUITTED on 24th March 2026.
CC - CALENDAR CASE
CNR: KLTR240019022019
Filing Number
200584/2019
Filing Date
22-06-2019
Registration No
200584/2019
Registration Date
22-06-2019
Court
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Wadakkanchery
Judge
1-Judicial First Class Magistrate
Decision Date
24th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--AQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
172
Police Station
PAZHAYANNUR
Year
19
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SIP (Sub-Inspector of Police)
Respondent(s)
NARAYANANKUTTI
SUBRAMANIAN
GIBU
SANTHOSH
RAJKUMARAN
RANJITH
MANIKANDAN
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial First Class Magistrate
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
FOR HEARING
repeat NBW
NBW to cws
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 19-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 16-03-2026 | FOR HEARING |
| 05-02-2026 | repeat NBW |
| 08-01-2026 | NBW to cws |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: CC 584/2019 The court acquitted four of six accused persons (A1 Narayanankutty, A3 Jibu, A4 Santhosh, and A6 Ranjith) of charges under IPC sections 143, 147, 447, 427, and 294(b) r/w 149, finding them not guilty. The prosecution alleged the accused formed an unlawful assembly, criminally trespassed into a property, destroyed an iron fence and concrete stones causing Rs. 18,000 loss, and uttered obscene words. However, the sole eyewitness (PW1) turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution case, leaving no linking evidence connecting the accused to the alleged incident. Consequently, the burden of proof was not satisfied, and all five points were decided against the prosecution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: CC 584/2019 The court acquitted four of six accused persons (A1 Narayanankutty, A3 Jibu, A4 Santhosh, and A6 Ranjith) of charges under IPC sections 143, 147, 447, 427, and 294(b) r/w 149, finding them not guilty. The prosecution alleged the accused formed an unlawful assembly, criminally trespassed into a property, destroyed an iron fence and concrete stones causing Rs. 18,000 loss, and uttered obscene words. However, the sole eyewitness (PW1) turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution case, leaving no linking evidence connecting the accused to the alleged incident. Consequently, the burden of proof was not satisfied, and all five points were decided against the prosecution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts