State of Bihar vs MUKESH YADAV AND OTHERS Advocate - PRAMOD KUMAR — 157/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 341,323,324,308,379/34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 18th March 2026.
SESSION CASE
CNR: BRNL010014342025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1295/2025
Filing Date
20-02-2025
Registration No
157/2025
Registration Date
20-02-2025
Court
Nalanda DJ Div.
Judge
5-District and Addl. Sessions Judge-II
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
297
Police Station
HARNAUT
Year
2016
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Bihar
Adv. Public Prosecutor
Respondent(s)
MUKESH YADAV AND OTHERS Advocate - PRAMOD KUMAR
DHANSHI DEVI OR PRITY DEVI
RAM BARAN YADAV
Hearing History
Judge: 5-District and Addl. Sessions Judge-II
Disposed
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS | |
| 21-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS | |
| 16-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS | |
| 11-02-2026 | EVIDENCE |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Mukesh Yadav, Rambaran Yadav, and Dhansi Devi of charges under IPC sections 341, 323, 324, 308, and 379/34 due to insufficient evidence. The court found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting that one witness was declared hostile, the informant's testimony contradicted itself, and critical evidence like the FIR, charge sheet, and medical reports were never formally proved as the investigating officer and doctor did not testify. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Mukesh Yadav, Rambaran Yadav, and Dhansi Devi of charges under IPC sections 341, 323, 324, 308, and 379/34 due to insufficient evidence. The court found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting that one witness was declared hostile, the informant's testimony contradicted itself, and critical evidence like the FIR, charge sheet, and medical reports were never formally proved as the investigating officer and doctor did not testify. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts