Shambhu Yadav vs Rajiv Kumar Advocate - Ajit Narayan Yadav — 283/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 302,201/34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 07th April 2026.

Case disposed

SESSION CASE

CNR: BRSH010048332024

Filing Number

4832/2024

Filing Date

22-Aug-2024

Registration No

283/2024

Registration Date

22-Aug-2024

Court

DJ Div. Saharsa

Judge

6-District And Aditional Sessions Judge-IV

Decision Date

07-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 28-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

0246

Police Station

SAHARSA SADAR

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 302,201/34

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Shambhu Yadav

    Adv. Rajeshwar Parsad Yadav

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Rajiv Kumar Advocate - Ajit Narayan Yadav

  2. 2.Prince Kumar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Apr-2026

    Copy of JudgmentsView PDF

    Case Summary: State v. Rajiv Kumar and Another (S.T. Case No. 283/2024) Court Decision: The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted both accused—Rajiv Kumar and Prince Kumar—of all charges under IPC sections 302 (murder), 201 (concealing evidence), and 34 (criminal conspiracy) on April 7, 2026. Key Reasoning: The court found that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Despite relying on circumstantial evidence and the "last seen theory" (that the deceased was last seen with the accused), the court held that critical evidentiary gaps existed: contradictions in witness statements regarding location and timing, absence of established motive, lack of corroborating evidence (weapon recovery, absconding), and no forensic confirmation of the alleged firearm injury. The postmortem report indicated blunt force trauma, not gunshot wounds as claimed. Applying established Supreme Court precedents requiring complete circumstantial evidence chains, the judge ruled the prosecution had not discharged its burden. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    District And Aditional Sessions Judge-IV

  4. 24-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    District And Aditional Sessions Judge-IV

  5. 16-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District And Aditional Sessions Judge-IV

  6. 12-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District And Aditional Sessions Judge-IV

  7. 27-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    District And Aditional Sessions Judge-IV

  8. 23-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    District And Aditional Sessions Judge-IV

  9. 21-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    District And Aditional Sessions Judge-IV

  10. 18-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    District And Aditional Sessions Judge-IV

  11. 11-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    District And Aditional Sessions Judge-IV

  12. 03-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    District And Aditional Sessions Judge-IV

  13. 28-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    District And Aditional Sessions Judge-IV

  14. 21-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    District And Aditional Sessions Judge-IV

  15. 16-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    District And Aditional Sessions Judge-IV

  16. 07-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    District And Aditional Sessions Judge-IV

  17. 19-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    District And Aditional Sessions Judge-IV

  18. 12-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    District And Aditional Sessions Judge-IV

  19. 04-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    District And Aditional Sessions Judge-IV

  20. 19-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    District And Aditional Sessions Judge-IV

  21. 15-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    District And Aditional Sessions Judge-IV

  22. 03-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    District And Aditional Sessions Judge-IV

  23. 30-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    District And Aditional Sessions Judge-IV

  24. 14-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    District And Aditional Sessions Judge-IV

  25. 19-Sep-2025

    Arguments

    District And Aditional Sessions Judge-IV

  26. 10-Sep-2025

    Arguments

    District And Aditional Sessions Judge-IV

  27. 03-Sep-2025

    Arguments

    District And Aditional Sessions Judge-IV

  28. 22-Aug-2025

    Arguments

    District And Aditional Sessions Judge-IV

  29. 08-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    District And Aditional Sessions Judge-IV

  30. 04-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    District And Aditional Sessions Judge-IV

  31. 21-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    District And Additional Sessions Judge-I

  32. 07-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    District And Additional Sessions Judge-I

  33. 18-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    District And Additional Sessions Judge-I

  34. 05-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    District And Additional Sessions Judge-I

  35. 19-May-2025

    Evidence

    District And Additional Sessions Judge-III

  36. 05-May-2025

    Evidence

    District And Additional Sessions Judge-III

  37. 23-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    District And Additional Sessions Judge-III

  38. 22-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    District And Additional Sessions Judge-III

  39. 27-Mar-2025

    Evidence

  40. 06-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    District And Additional Sessions Judge-III

  41. 07-Feb-2025

    Evidence

    District And Additional Sessions Judge-III

  42. 15-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    District And Additional Sessions Judge-III

  43. 23-Dec-2024

    Evidence

    District And Additional Sessions Judge-III

  44. 23-Nov-2024

    Evidence

    District And Additional Sessions Judge-III

  45. 30-Oct-2024

    Evidence

    District And Aditional Sessions Judge-IV

  46. 26-Sep-2024

    Evidence

    District And Aditional Sessions Judge-IV

  47. 27-Aug-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  48. 22-Aug-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 283/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State v. Rajiv Kumar and Another (S.T. Case No. 283/2024) Court Decision: The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted both accused—Rajiv Kumar and Prince Kumar—of all charges under IPC sections 302 (murder), 201 (concealing evidence), and 34 (criminal conspiracy) on April 7, 2026. Key Reasoning: The court found that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Despite relying on circumstantial evidence and the "last seen theory" (that the deceased was last seen with the accused), the court held that critical evidentiary gaps existed: contradictions in witness statements regarding location and timing, absence of established motive, lack of corroborating evidence (weapon recovery, absconding), and no forensic confirmation of the alleged firearm injury. The postmortem report indicated blunt force trauma, not gunshot wounds as claimed. Applying established Supreme Court precedents requiring complete circumstantial evidence chains, the judge ruled the prosecution had not discharged its burden. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case