STATE vs DHIRENDER PRASAD Advocate - Rahul Senapathi, Tariq Hashmi, DCLADC, Tariq Hashmi, DCLADCRahul Senapathi, — 67/2021

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 323,341,506. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

SC - SESSIONS CASE

CNR: DLST010018082021

Filing Number

659/2021

Filing Date

15-Feb-2021

Registration No

67/2021

Registration Date

15-Feb-2021

Court

District and Sessions Judge, South , Saket

Judge

6-Additional Sessions Judge-02

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 08-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

274

Police Station

Maidan Garhi

Year

2020

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 323,341,506
Sc/st(prevention of Attrocities) Act 1989 Section 3

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE

    Adv. Tariq Hashmi, DCLADC for complainant

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DHIRENDER PRASAD Advocate - Rahul Senapathi, Tariq Hashmi, DCLADC, Tariq Hashmi, DCLADCRahul Senapathi,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Additional Sessions Judge-02

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    Misc./ Appearance (Criminal)

    Additional Sessions Judge-02

  5. 07-Mar-2026

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  6. 07-Mar-2026

    Copy Of JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: State v. Dhirender Prasad (Session Case 67/2021) Court Decision: The accused Dhirender Prasad was acquitted of all charges under Sections 341, 323, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Key Reasoning: The court found reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case due to: (1) absence of independent neutral witnesses despite the alleged public place incident; (2) all key witnesses being known to the complainant from the same locality; (3) eight-day delay in FIR registration without satisfactory explanation; (4) no clear motive for the accused's alleged conduct; (5) one prosecution eyewitness (PW-4) contradicting the case by denying the incident occurred; and (6) credible defense explanation suggesting the incident arose from a monetary dispute between the accused and witness PW-3. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  7. 07-Mar-2026

    Misc./ Appearance (Criminal)

    Additional Sessions Judge-02

  8. 23-Feb-2026

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  9. 23-Feb-2026

    Judgement (Criminal)

    Additional Sessions Judge-02

  10. 13-Feb-2026

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  11. 13-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments (Criminal)

    Additional Sessions Judge-02

  12. 13-Jan-2026

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  13. 13-Jan-2026

    Final Arguments (Criminal)

    Additional Sessions Judge-02

  14. 19-Dec-2025

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  15. 19-Dec-2025

    Final Arguments (Criminal)

    Additional Sessions Judge-02

  16. 01-Dec-2025

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  17. 01-Dec-2025

    Final Arguments (Criminal)

    Additional Sessions Judge-02

  18. 27-Oct-2025

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  19. 27-Oct-2025

    Statement of Accused

    Additional Sessions Judge-02

  20. 02-Aug-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional Sessions Judge

  21. 30-Apr-2025

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  22. 30-Apr-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional Sessions Judge

  23. 24-Apr-2025

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  24. 24-Apr-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional Sessions Judge

  25. 23-Jan-2025

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  26. 23-Jan-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional Sessions Judge

  27. 23-Oct-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional Sessions Judge

  28. 22-Oct-2024

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  29. 22-Oct-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional Sessions Judge

  30. 21-Oct-2024

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  31. 21-Oct-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional Sessions Judge

  32. 24-May-2024

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  33. 24-May-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional Sessions Judge

  34. 14-May-2024

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  35. 14-May-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional Sessions Judge

  36. 30-Jan-2024

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  37. 30-Jan-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional Sessions Judge

  38. 06-Oct-2023

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  39. 06-Oct-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional Sessions Judge

  40. 11-Jul-2023

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  41. 11-Jul-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Additional Sessions Judge

  42. 24-Apr-2023

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  43. 24-Apr-2023

    Charge

    Additional Sessions Judge

  44. 23-Jan-2023

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  45. 23-Jan-2023

    Charge

    Additional Sessions Judge

  46. 21-Nov-2022

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  47. 21-Nov-2022

    Charge

    Additional Sessions Judge

  48. 29-Aug-2022

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  49. 29-Aug-2022

    Charge

    Additional Sessions Judge

  50. 11-Jul-2022

    Charge

    Additional Sessions Judge

  51. 08-Mar-2022

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  52. 08-Mar-2022

    Misc./ Appearance (Criminal)

    Additional Sessions Judge

  53. 16-Dec-2021

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  54. 16-Dec-2021

    Misc./ Appearance (Criminal)

    Additional Sessions Judge

  55. 31-Jul-2021

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  56. 31-Jul-2021

    Misc./ Appearance (Criminal)

    Additional Sessions Judge

  57. 10-May-2021

    Misc./ Appearance (Criminal)

    Additional Sessions Judge

  58. 26-Feb-2021

    Copy Of OrderView PDF

  59. 26-Feb-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  60. 15-Feb-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. 67/2021

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State v. Dhirender Prasad (Session Case 67/2021) Court Decision: The accused Dhirender Prasad was acquitted of all charges under Sections 341, 323, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Key Reasoning: The court found reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case due to: (1) absence of independent neutral witnesses despite the alleged public place incident; (2) all key witnesses being known to the complainant from the same locality; (3) eight-day delay in FIR registration without satisfactory explanation; (4) no clear motive for the accused's alleged conduct; (5) one prosecution eyewitness (PW-4) contradicting the case by denying the incident occurred; and (6) credible defense explanation suggesting the incident arose from a monetary dispute between the accused and witness PW-3. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case