MAHENDRA RAM vs AMIT KUMAR SINGH — 1294/2018
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 147,148,149,323,379,504. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 01st April 2026.
criminal. case - criminal.case
CNR: BRST010093652018
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
7741/2018
Filing Date
13-10-2018
Registration No
1294/2018
Registration Date
13-10-2018
Court
DJ Div. Sitamarhi
Judge
2-District and Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Spl. Judge
Decision Date
01st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
11
Police Station
SC/ST
Year
2018
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MAHENDRA RAM
Adv. N/A
Respondent(s)
AMIT KUMAR SINGH
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District and Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Spl. Judge
Disposed
STATEMENT U/S.313 CR.P.C.
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 01-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 23-03-2026 | STATEMENT U/S.313 CR.P.C. | |
| 16-03-2026 | EVIDENCE | |
| 10-03-2026 | EVIDENCE | |
| 27-02-2026 | EVIDENCE |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Special SC/ST (POA) Act Court in Sitamarhi acquitted all seven accused persons (Amit Kumar Singh, Devanath Singh, Saroj Ray, Dharmendra Mahto, Lakshman Sah, Chandan Singh, and Shivoji Mahto) of charges under IPC Sections 147, 323/149, 504/34, 379/149, and SC/ST (POA) Act Section 3(1)(s), finding the prosecution's case not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the prosecution relied solely on the testimony of the informant/victim (Mahendra Ram) without any corroborating documentary evidence or independent witnesses, rendering the allegations unsubstantiated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Special SC/ST (POA) Act Court in Sitamarhi acquitted all seven accused persons (Amit Kumar Singh, Devanath Singh, Saroj Ray, Dharmendra Mahto, Lakshman Sah, Chandan Singh, and Shivoji Mahto) of charges under IPC Sections 147, 323/149, 504/34, 379/149, and SC/ST (POA) Act Section 3(1)(s), finding the prosecution's case not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the prosecution relied solely on the testimony of the informant/victim (Mahendra Ram) without any corroborating documentary evidence or independent witnesses, rendering the allegations unsubstantiated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts