State of Bihar vs UNDEV RAM — 950/2023

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 341,323,504/34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 08th April 2026.

CRIMINAL CASE OR GR CASE

CNR: BRJE110015912023

Case disposed

Filing Number

1591/2023

Filing Date

26-10-2023

Registration No

950/2023

Registration Date

06-11-2023

Court

Arwal CJM Div

Judge

1-Chief Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

08th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

226

Police Station

MEHADIA

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 341,323,504/34

Petitioner(s)

State of Bihar

Adv. APO

Respondent(s)

UNDEV RAM

DASAI RAM

KUSHUM DEVI

MINA DEVI

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Chief Judicial Magistrate

08-04-2026

Disposed

25-03-2026

JUDGEMENT

11-03-2026

ARGUMENTS

03-02-2026

EVIDENCE

02-01-2026

EVIDENCE

Final Orders / Judgements

08-04-2026
Judgment

Court Judgment Summary Case: GR No. 950/2023, Mehindya Police Station Case No. 226/2023 Court: Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arwal, Bihar Decision Date: 08-04-2026 The court acquitted all four accused (Kusum Devi, Meena Devi, Unjhav Ram, and Dashai Ram) of charges under IPC Sections 341, 323, and 504/34. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the allegations beyond reasonable doubt, noting that one key witness was discredited, the scene of offense was not properly proven, and the investigation lacked corroborating evidence to support the charges of wrongful restraint, simple hurt, and criminal intimidation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Judgment Summary Case: GR No. 950/2023, Mehindya Police Station Case No. 226/2023 Court: Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arwal, Bihar Decision Date: 08-04-2026 The court acquitted all four accused (Kusum Devi, Meena Devi, Unjhav Ram, and Dashai Ram) of charges under IPC Sections 341, 323, and 504/34. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the allegations beyond reasonable doubt, noting that one key witness was discredited, the scene of offense was not properly proven, and the investigation lacked corroborating evidence to support the charges of wrongful restraint, simple hurt, and criminal intimidation. 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

Arwal CJM Div All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case