State of Haryana vs MAHENDER Advocate - KANWAR BHAN ARYA — 2797/2013
Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 10th February 2014.
Chi - CHALLAN IPC
CNR: HRPP030002952007
Filing Number
5166/2013
Filing Date
22-Oct-2007
Registration No
2797/2013
Registration Date
20-Apr-2013
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat
Judge
14-
Decision Date
10-Feb-2014
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Last updated 17-Jul-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State of Haryana
Adv. Ashwani Kumar
Respondent(s)
-
1.MAHENDER Advocate - KANWAR BHAN ARYA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
10-Feb-2014
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
Case Summary: State vs. Mahender Singh (2797/2013) Decision: The court acquitted accused Mahender Singh of all charges under IPC Sections 279 (rash driving), 337 (causing hurt), and 304-A (causing death by negligence). The Judicial Magistrate found the prosecution had failed to establish its case due to critical evidentiary gaps: the key eyewitness (complainant) turned hostile and retracted his police statement, the investigating officer did not testify, no independent witnesses were examined, and crucial documents remained unproved. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the accused actually drove the offending vehicle on the date of the fatal accident. Extending the benefit of doubt, the accused's bail bonds were discharged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
10-Feb-2014
Disposed
-
25-Jan-2014
313 Cr.Pc
-
08-Jan-2014
Procecution Evidence
-
18-Nov-2013
Procecution Evidence
-
18-Sep-2013
Procecution Evidence
-
27-Jul-2013
Procecution Evidence
-
03-Jun-2013
Procecution Evidence
-
08-May-2013
Procecution Evidence
-
20-Dec-2012
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
22-Oct-2007
Case filed
Registration No. 2797/2013
Case Summary: State vs. Mahender Singh (2797/2013) Decision: The court acquitted accused Mahender Singh of all charges under IPC Sections 279 (rash driving), 337 (causing hurt), and 304-A (causing death by negligence). The Judicial Magistrate found the prosecution had failed to establish its case due to critical evidentiary gaps: the key eyewitness (complainant) turned hostile and retracted his police statement, the investigating officer did not testify, no independent witnesses were examined, and crucial documents remained unproved. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the accused actually drove the offending vehicle on the date of the fatal accident. Extending the benefit of doubt, the accused's bail bonds were discharged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts