SHARVAN KUMAR PANDEY vs DAYANAND PANDEY AND THREE OTHERS — 15/2018
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 304(B),34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 19th March 2026.
SESSION CASE
CNR: BRJA010000932018
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
15/2018
Filing Date
09-01-2018
Registration No
15/2018
Registration Date
09-01-2018
Court
DJ Div. Jamui
Judge
3-District And Additional Sessions Judge II, Jamui
Decision Date
19th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
16
Police Station
KHAIRA
Year
2012
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SHARVAN KUMAR PANDEY
Respondent(s)
DAYANAND PANDEY AND THREE OTHERS
Hearing History
Judge: 3-District And Additional Sessions Judge II, Jamui
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
ARGUMENT
ARGUMENT
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 19-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 09-03-2026 | ARGUMENT | |
| 20-02-2026 | ARGUMENT | |
| 16-01-2026 | EVIDENCE |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The District & Additional Sessions Judge, Jamui acquitted all three accused (Dinesh Pandey, Dayanand Pandey, and Urmila Devi) of charges under IPC Sections 304(B)/34 (dowry death) and 302/34 (murder), and Dowry Prevention Act Sections 3/4. The court found that the informant (deceased's father) himself retracted his allegations during trial, stating his daughter died of heart disease and that he had filed the case based on rumors, while other witnesses testified only to natural death and no evidence of dowry demand or foul play was established. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The District & Additional Sessions Judge, Jamui acquitted all three accused (Dinesh Pandey, Dayanand Pandey, and Urmila Devi) of charges under IPC Sections 304(B)/34 (dowry death) and 302/34 (murder), and Dowry Prevention Act Sections 3/4. The court found that the informant (deceased's father) himself retracted his allegations during trial, stating his daughter died of heart disease and that he had filed the case based on rumors, while other witnesses testified only to natural death and no evidence of dowry demand or foul play was established. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts