KOCHI: A Recent judgment by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court in Angamali captured a neighbourhood standoff, where the alleged weapon was not just a stick but smoke from burning plastic waste drifting across a disputed boundary.
The case dates back to January 2025, around 7 pm, when the accused neighbour allegedly set fire to plastic and other garbage near a compound wall at the centre of a long-running boundary dispute. According to the complainant, the wall had been constructed in violation of court orders, and the burning of waste had become routine — in morning and evening — sending smoke into his house where his mother-in-law lay bedridden after a stroke. When he objected to this, the situation, he claimed, escalated into verbal abuse, a stick attack and threats.
He told the court that he was beaten with a wooden stick. In the blow, a surgically implanted screw in his hand was damaged and he suffered a serious eye injury. Fear, he said, kept him from seeking treatment that night. He went to the Government Hospital, Angamali, the next day and was referred to Aluva. He eventually filed a private complaint in court.
But in court, the case began to unravel. A key claim — that the blow damaged a surgical screw in his hand — was weakened by his own admission that the issue came to light only after six months. The court found this delay significant. “If such a serious internal injury had occurred, immediate medical attention and documentation would have been expected,” it observed, noting the absence of supporting medical records.
The eye injury claim fared worse. The complainant described a severe injury — a blow beneath the eyelid causing continuous bleeding — yet he did not seek treatment for nearly 16 hours.
The court found this version “exaggerated and medically improbable”, noting that medical records showed only swelling.
The charge of criminal intimidation also failed. While threats were alleged, the court reiterated that “mere threats, not intended to cause alarm, do not constitute criminal intimidation”, finding no evidence of real intent to instil fear.
With only the complainant and his wife as witnesses and no independent corroboration, the court held that the prosecution had not met the standard of proof required in criminal law and acquitted both the accused neighbour and his co-accused.
Lawyers say such disputes are becoming increasingly common. “These are classic tit-for-tat cases,” said senior advocate George Thomas, recalling a similar dispute occurred in Ernakulam where one neighbour justified smoke coming from burning waste as a “law of nature”, only for the other to douse the fire by throwing water from terrace citing gravity — a “scientific” argument that soon turned into a fight and litigation. “Earlier, people resolved such issues through dialogue. Now they become prestige battles,” he said.
Burnt plastic, garbage
Accused neighbour allegedly set fire to plastic and other garbage near a compound wall
According to the complainant, the wall had been constructed in violation of court orders, and the burning of waste sent smoke into his house where his mother-in-law lay bedridden after a stroke