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

Case disposed

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

Indian Penal Code Section 341,323,325,307,504,506,34

Petitioner(s)

Munna Yadav

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

Lal Bahadur Yadav Advocate - sri

Hearing History

Judge: 2-District Additional Sessions Judge Ist

30-04-2026

Disposed

24-04-2026

JUDGEMENT

09-04-2026

JUDGEMENT

23-03-2026

ARGUMENTS

12-03-2026

DEFENCE EVIDENCE

Final Orders / Judgements

30-04-2026
JUDGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Bagha Sub Div. Court All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case