STATE vs SHAHNWAZ @ PARDHAN AND ANR. — 514/2023
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 392,397,411,34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 29th May 2026.
SC - SESSIONS CASE
CNR: DLNT010088982023
Filing Number
3502/2023
Filing Date
08-07-2023
Registration No
514/2023
Registration Date
16-08-2023
Court
District and Sessions Judge, North, RHC
Judge
466-Principal District and Sessions Judge, North
Decision Date
29th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
438
Police Station
S.P. Badli
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE
Respondent(s)
SHAHNWAZ @ PARDHAN AND ANR.
AMARJEET @ KALIA
Hearing History
Judge: 466-Principal District and Sessions Judge, North
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
Final Argument
Statement of Accused
Statement of Accused
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 20-05-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 15-05-2026 | Final Argument |
| 11-05-2026 | Statement of Accused |
| 01-04-2026 | Statement of Accused |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State v. Shahnawaz @ Pardhan & Amarjeet @ Kalia (514/2023) The court acquitted both accused of robbery charges under IPC sections 392/397/411 and Arms Act section 25. The prosecution's case failed because the complainant (PW4), the star witness and victim, categorically failed to identify the accused or the recovered property during trial, contradicting the investigating officer's testimony on vital aspects including arrest, recovery, and site plan preparation. The court found no credible corroboration and insufficient public witnesses, particularly when CCTV footage from nearby CNG pumps was unavailable, creating reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: State v. Shahnawaz @ Pardhan & Amarjeet @ Kalia (514/2023) The court acquitted both accused of robbery charges under IPC sections 392/397/411 and Arms Act section 25. The prosecution's case failed because the complainant (PW4), the star witness and victim, categorically failed to identify the accused or the recovered property during trial, contradicting the investigating officer's testimony on vital aspects including arrest, recovery, and site plan preparation. The court found no credible corroboration and insufficient public witnesses, particularly when CCTV footage from nearby CNG pumps was unavailable, creating reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts