SATYANARAYAN SINGH vs AMRENDRA KUMAR JHA@MINTU JHA Advocate - Dharmendra kumar — 146/2023

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 302,307,120(B),34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 30th April 2026.

Case disposed

SESSION CASE

CNR: BRSO010038322023

Filing Number

3832/2023

Filing Date

07-Oct-2023

Registration No

146/2023

Registration Date

07-Oct-2023

Court

Sheohar DJ Div.

Judge

1-Principal District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

30-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 28-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

150

Police Station

PURNAHIA

Year

2020

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 302,307,120(B),34
Arms Act Section 27

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SATYANARAYAN SINGH

    Adv. Shailendra kumar (p.p)

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.AMRENDRA KUMAR JHA@MINTU JHA Advocate - Dharmendra kumar

  2. 2.RAMESH SHANKAR PANDEY

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 30-Apr-2026

    JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: State v. Amrendra Kumar Jha & Anrs. Court: Principal Sessions Judge, Sheohar Case Number: 146/2023 Judgment Date: 30 April 2026 Decision Both accused Mintu Jha @ Amrendra Jha and Ramesh Shankar Pandey were acquitted of all charges under IPC Sections 302/307/120(B) and Arms Act Section 27 due to insufficient prosecution evidence. Key Reasoning The court found that: (1) six of nine prosecution witnesses were declared hostile and provided no credible testimony; (2) no eyewitness identified the shooters; (3) the investigating officer admitted no incriminating material was recovered from the accused, no mobile location data linked them to the crime scene, and no documentary evidence of conspiracy existed; and (4) six co-accused in the related trial were similarly acquitted for lack of evidence, placing these accused on identical footing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 30-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  4. 28-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  5. 19-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  6. 12-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  7. 24-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  8. 16-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  9. 06-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  10. 21-Jan-2026

    Statement U/S.313 Cr.p.c.

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  11. 09-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  12. 22-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District and Sessions Judge

  13. 10-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  14. 08-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  15. 28-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  16. 13-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  17. 14-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  18. 25-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  19. 11-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  20. 03-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  21. 19-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  22. 01-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  23. 18-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  24. 07-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  25. 10-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  26. 14-May-2025

    Evidence

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  27. 29-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  28. 11-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  29. 30-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  30. 19-Dec-2024

    Evidence

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  31. 18-Nov-2024

    Evidence

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  32. 25-Oct-2024

    Evidence

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  33. 08-Oct-2024

    Evidence

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  34. 10-Sep-2024

    Evidence

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  35. 28-Aug-2024

    Evidence

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  36. 08-Aug-2024

    Evidence

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  37. 25-Jul-2024

    Evidence

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  38. 10-Jul-2024

    Evidence

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  39. 28-Jun-2024

    Evidence

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  40. 15-Jun-2024

    Evidence

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  41. 20-May-2024

    Evidence

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  42. 23-Apr-2024

    Evidence

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  43. 16-Mar-2024

    Evidence

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  44. 15-Feb-2024

    Evidence

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  45. 06-Jan-2024

    Evidence

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  46. 28-Nov-2023

    Evidence

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  47. 16-Oct-2023

    Evidence

    District and Addl. Sessions Judge-III

  48. 11-Oct-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  49. 07-Oct-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 146/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State v. Amrendra Kumar Jha & Anrs. Court: Principal Sessions Judge, Sheohar Case Number: 146/2023 Judgment Date: 30 April 2026 Decision Both accused Mintu Jha @ Amrendra Jha and Ramesh Shankar Pandey were acquitted of all charges under IPC Sections 302/307/120(B) and Arms Act Section 27 due to insufficient prosecution evidence. Key Reasoning The court found that: (1) six of nine prosecution witnesses were declared hostile and provided no credible testimony; (2) no eyewitness identified the shooters; (3) the investigating officer admitted no incriminating material was recovered from the accused, no mobile location data linked them to the crime scene, and no documentary evidence of conspiracy existed; and (4) six co-accused in the related trial were similarly acquitted for lack of evidence, placing these accused on identical footing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case