ST-476A/13, JHAJHA PS-02/13 VINAY TUDU vs PREM ALIYAS JUTI YADAV — 476/2013
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 395,412. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 13th March 2026.
SESSION CASE
CNR: BRJA010015442013
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
476/2013
Filing Date
19-05-2025
Registration No
476/2013
Registration Date
19-05-2025
Court
DJ Div. Jamui
Judge
3-District And Additional Sessions Judge II, Jamui
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
02
Police Station
JHAJHA
Year
2013
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
ST-476A/13, JHAJHA PS-02/13 VINAY TUDU
Respondent(s)
PREM ALIYAS JUTI YADAV
Hearing History
Judge: 3-District And Additional Sessions Judge II, Jamui
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
STATEMENT U/S.313 CR.P.C.
STATEMENT U/S.313 CR.P.C.
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 06-03-2026 | STATEMENT U/S.313 CR.P.C. | |
| 21-02-2026 | STATEMENT U/S.313 CR.P.C. | |
| 11-02-2026 | EVIDENCE |
Final Orders / Judgements
The District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamui acquitted accused Prem Yadav of all charges under IPC sections 395/412/413 (dacoity and receiving stolen property) on March 13, 2026. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the sole prosecution witness (informant Vinay Tuddu) could not identify the accused in court, admitted the incident occurred in darkness with perpetrators' faces covered, and no TIP was conducted. Despite being given over 13 years to present evidence, the prosecution produced only one witness with no corroborating documentary evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamui acquitted accused Prem Yadav of all charges under IPC sections 395/412/413 (dacoity and receiving stolen property) on March 13, 2026. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the sole prosecution witness (informant Vinay Tuddu) could not identify the accused in court, admitted the incident occurred in darkness with perpetrators' faces covered, and no TIP was conducted. Despite being given over 13 years to present evidence, the prosecution produced only one witness with no corroborating documentary evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts