State of Bihar vs HULASH YADAV — 290/2016
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 341,323,337,307,504,34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 22nd April 2026.
SESSION CASE
CNR: BRJE010000452016
Filing Number
290/2016
Filing Date
08-06-2016
Registration No
290/2016
Registration Date
08-06-2016
Court
Jehanabad DJ Div
Judge
1-District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
22nd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
197
Police Station
KAKO
Year
2014
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Bihar
Respondent(s)
HULASH YADAV
BHURA YADAV
UMESH YADAV
SAMODA @ KAMODA DEVI
RUNDA DEVI @ RADHE DEVI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District and Sessions Judge
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
ARGUMENTS
Appearence
Appearence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 22-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 18-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 17-04-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 16-04-2026 | Appearence |
| 15-04-2026 | Appearence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Sessions Judge, Jehanabad acquitted all three accused persons (Hulash Yadav, Umesh Yadav, and Samoda Devi) of charges under IPC sections 341/34, 323/34, 307/34, and 504/34, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted material inconsistencies between the FIR, witness testimonies, and medical evidence, observed that key witnesses (including the informant) did not consistently support the prosecution's narrative, and found that both parties were involved in a neighborhood dispute that had been compromised. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Sessions Judge, Jehanabad acquitted all three accused persons (Hulash Yadav, Umesh Yadav, and Samoda Devi) of charges under IPC sections 341/34, 323/34, 307/34, and 504/34, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted material inconsistencies between the FIR, witness testimonies, and medical evidence, observed that key witnesses (including the informant) did not consistently support the prosecution's narrative, and found that both parties were involved in a neighborhood dispute that had been compromised. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts