Munna Yadav vs Lal Bahadur Yadav Advocate - sri — 72/2023
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 341,323,325,307,504,506,34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 30th April 2026.
SESSIONS CASE
CNR: BRWC100011122023
Filing Number
1111/2023
Filing Date
13-02-2023
Registration No
72/2023
Registration Date
13-02-2023
Court
Bagha Sub Div. Court
Judge
2-District Additional Sessions Judge Ist
Decision Date
30th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
150
Police Station
Ramnagar
Year
2018
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Munna Yadav
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Lal Bahadur Yadav Advocate - sri
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Additional Sessions Judge Ist
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
ARGUMENTS
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 24-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 09-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 23-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 12-03-2026 | DEFENCE EVIDENCE |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case 72/2023: Munna Yadav v. Lal Bahadur Yadav – Summary Decision: The court acquitted all three accused (Lal Bahadur Yadav, Mantu Yadav, and Suraj Yadav) of charges under IPC sections 341, 323, 325, 307, 504, 506 read with section 34. Key Reasoning: The court found that the prosecution's two eyewitnesses, during cross-examination, admitted critical inconsistencies: they could not see who actually inflicted injuries, made contradictory statements about the circumstances, and acknowledged settlement between parties. In the absence of credible, consistent evidence proving the accusations beyond reasonable doubt, the court applied the legal principle that benefit of doubt must go to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case 72/2023: Munna Yadav v. Lal Bahadur Yadav – Summary Decision: The court acquitted all three accused (Lal Bahadur Yadav, Mantu Yadav, and Suraj Yadav) of charges under IPC sections 341, 323, 325, 307, 504, 506 read with section 34. Key Reasoning: The court found that the prosecution's two eyewitnesses, during cross-examination, admitted critical inconsistencies: they could not see who actually inflicted injuries, made contradictory statements about the circumstances, and acknowledged settlement between parties. In the absence of credible, consistent evidence proving the accusations beyond reasonable doubt, the court applied the legal principle that benefit of doubt must go to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts