THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH JITENDRA SINGH vs RUPESH SINGH URF RUPESH KUMAR — 548/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 103,3(5). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 06th April 2026.

Case disposed

SESSION CASE

CNR: BRAU010113582025

Filing Number

10140/2025

Filing Date

26-Sep-2025

Registration No

548/2025

Registration Date

26-Sep-2025

Court

DJ Division Aurangabad

Judge

4-District Addl. S J- IV

Decision Date

06-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

0204

Police Station

RAFIGANJ

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 103,3(5)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH JITENDRA SINGH

    Adv. Pushkar Agrawal

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RUPESH SINGH URF RUPESH KUMAR

  2. 2.SANTU KUMAR URF SANTU SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-Apr-2026

    JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: State of Bihar v. Rupesh Singh & Santu Kumar (548/2025) Court Decision: Both accused Rupesh Singh and Santu Kumar were acquitted of charges under Section 103 and 3(5) of the BNS (murder). The court found insufficient direct or circumstantial evidence linking them to the death of the deceased (Ajay Singh). Key Reasoning: While the autopsy confirmed the deceased died from severe trauma (cervical spine fracture, multiple rib fractures, hemorrhagic shock), the prosecution failed to establish the accused's culpability. Critical evidentiary gaps included: seized items were not produced in court; no witness directly observed the alleged murder; the informant could not identify who actually committed the crime; and the accused's names surfaced only on suspicion. The court concluded that though the death appeared suspicious, the prosecution had not met the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    District Addl. S J- IV

  4. 04-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    District Addl. S J- IV

  5. 23-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    District Addl. S J- IV

  6. 18-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District Addl. S J- IV

  7. 17-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District Addl. S J- IV

  8. 16-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District Addl. S J- IV

  9. 09-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District Addl. S J- IV

  10. 26-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    District Addl. S J- IV

  11. 23-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    District Addl. S J- IV

  12. 19-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    District Addl. S J- IV

  13. 17-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    District Addl. S J- IV

  14. 12-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    District Addl. S J- IV

  15. 04-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    District Addl. S J- IV

  16. 27-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    District Addl. S J- IV

  17. 19-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    District Addl. S J- IV

  18. 15-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    District Addl. S J- IV

  19. 12-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    District Addl. S J- IV

  20. 08-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    District Addl. S J- IV

  21. 07-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    District Addl. S J- IV

  22. 05-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    District Addl. S J- IV

  23. 23-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    District Addl. S J- IV

  24. 22-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    District Addl. S J- IV

  25. 11-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    District Addl. S J- IV

  26. 24-Nov-2025

    Charge

    District Addl. S J- IV

  27. 13-Nov-2025

    Charge

    District Addl. S J- IV

  28. 31-Oct-2025

    Charge

    District Addl. S J- IV

  29. 27-Sep-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  30. 26-Sep-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 548/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Bihar v. Rupesh Singh & Santu Kumar (548/2025) Court Decision: Both accused Rupesh Singh and Santu Kumar were acquitted of charges under Section 103 and 3(5) of the BNS (murder). The court found insufficient direct or circumstantial evidence linking them to the death of the deceased (Ajay Singh). Key Reasoning: While the autopsy confirmed the deceased died from severe trauma (cervical spine fracture, multiple rib fractures, hemorrhagic shock), the prosecution failed to establish the accused's culpability. Critical evidentiary gaps included: seized items were not produced in court; no witness directly observed the alleged murder; the informant could not identify who actually committed the crime; and the accused's names surfaced only on suspicion. The court concluded that though the death appeared suspicious, the prosecution had not met the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case