CHANDRAREKHA DEVI vs RAMESH YADAV — 464/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 341,323,354B,308,379,504,506,34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 17th March 2026.
SESSION CASE
CNR: BRBE100001852024
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
464/2024
Filing Date
05-07-2024
Registration No
464/2024
Registration Date
15-05-2024
Court
DJ Div. Manjhaul
Judge
2-Addl. District And Session Judge
Decision Date
17th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
167
Police Station
KHODAWANDPUR
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
CHANDRAREKHA DEVI
Respondent(s)
RAMESH YADAV
SURESH YADAV
RABINDRA KUMAR YADAV
NITISH KUMAR
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Addl. District And Session Judge
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
ARGUMENTS
STATEMENT U/S.313 CR.P.C.
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 16-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 09-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 18-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS | |
| 10-02-2026 | STATEMENT U/S.313 CR.P.C. |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Additional Sessions Judge, Manjhaul acquitted all four accused persons (Ravindra Kumar Yadav, Nitish Kumar, Ramesh Yadav, and Suresh Yadav) of charges under IPC sections 308/34, 323/34, 341/34, 354D/34, 379/34, 504/34, and 506/34. The court found that the prosecution witnesses, despite supporting the case during examination-in-chief, contradicted themselves during cross-examination by stating there was a huge crowd and they could not identify who actually assaulted them or confirm that any theft occurred. The judge concluded the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the witness testimony was neither cogent nor reliable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Additional Sessions Judge, Manjhaul acquitted all four accused persons (Ravindra Kumar Yadav, Nitish Kumar, Ramesh Yadav, and Suresh Yadav) of charges under IPC sections 308/34, 323/34, 341/34, 354D/34, 379/34, 504/34, and 506/34. The court found that the prosecution witnesses, despite supporting the case during examination-in-chief, contradicted themselves during cross-examination by stating there was a huge crowd and they could not identify who actually assaulted them or confirm that any theft occurred. The judge concluded the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the witness testimony was neither cogent nor reliable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts