SOHILA DEVI vs SURAJ KUMAR — 35/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 363, 366(A), 376. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 29th April 2026.
SESSION CASE
CNR: BRGO010004972025
Filing Number
450/2025
Filing Date
20-Jan-2018
Registration No
35/2025
Registration Date
24-Jan-2025
Court
DJ Div. Gopalganj
Judge
3-ADJ-I
Decision Date
29-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Last updated 23-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
227
Police Station
BAIKUNTHPUR
Year
2018
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SOHILA DEVI
Respondent(s)
-
1.SURAJ KUMAR
-
2.BAI RAM MAHTO
-
3.INDRADEV MAHTO
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
29-Apr-2026
JudgmentView PDF
The court acquitted Suraj Kumar of charges under IPC sections 363 (kidnapping), 366-A (procuration of minor girl), and 376 (rape) due to insufficient evidence. The key reasoning was that the informant (victim's mother) contradicted her allegations in cross-examination, admitting her daughter left home voluntarily and was brought back by the accused, and that the actual victim did not testify. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and consequently discharged the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
29-Apr-2026
Disposed
ADJ-I
-
22-Apr-2026
Judgement
ADJ-I
-
24-Mar-2026
Arguments
ADJ-I
-
12-Mar-2026
Arguments
ADJ-I
-
27-Jan-2026
Evidence
ADJ-I
-
17-Dec-2025
Evidence
ADJ-I
-
04-Nov-2025
Evidence
ADJ-I
-
16-Sep-2025
Evidence
ADJ-I
-
11-Aug-2025
Evidence
ADJ-I
-
16-Jul-2025
Evidence
ADJ-I
-
20-Jun-2025
Evidence
ADJ-I
-
28-May-2025
Evidence
ADJ-I
-
13-May-2025
Evidence
ADJ-I
-
26-Mar-2025
Evidence
ADJ-I
-
24-Feb-2025
Evidence
ADJ-I
-
11-Feb-2025
Evidence
ADJ-I
-
05-Feb-2025
Evidence
ADJ-I
-
31-Jan-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
20-Jan-2018
Case filed
Registration No. 35/2025
The court acquitted Suraj Kumar of charges under IPC sections 363 (kidnapping), 366-A (procuration of minor girl), and 376 (rape) due to insufficient evidence. The key reasoning was that the informant (victim's mother) contradicted her allegations in cross-examination, admitting her daughter left home voluntarily and was brought back by the accused, and that the actual victim did not testify. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and consequently discharged the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts