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

Case disposed

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

Indian Penal Code Section 341,323,354B,308,379,504,506,34

Petitioner(s)

CHANDRAREKHA DEVI

Respondent(s)

RAMESH YADAV

SURESH YADAV

RABINDRA KUMAR YADAV

NITISH KUMAR

Hearing History

Judge: 2-Addl. District And Session Judge

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

17-03-2026
Copy Judgement

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

DJ Div. Manjhaul All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case