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
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
Petitioner(s)
State of Bihar
Adv. APO
Respondent(s)
UNDEV RAM
DASAI RAM
KUSHUM DEVI
MINA DEVI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Chief Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
ARGUMENTS
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 25-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 11-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 03-02-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 02-01-2026 | EVIDENCE |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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
Explore other courts