Kumar vs State by Davanagere Rural PS Advocate - Public Prosecutor — 76/2025
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 374(2). Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED/GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 01st April 2026.
CRL.A - CRIMINAL MISC APPEAL CASES
CNR: KADG010010562025
Filing Number
76/2025
Filing Date
25-Mar-2025
Registration No
76/2025
Registration Date
25-Mar-2025
Court
PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, DAVANGERE
Judge
243-Prl District And Sessions Judge Davangere
Decision Date
01-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED/GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING
Last updated 04-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
134
Police Station
DAVANGERE RURAL PS
Year
2019
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Kumar
Adv. Rajesh S Varnekar
-
2.Ramesh alias Ramesh Kumar
-
3.Maruti P
-
4.Suresh S
Respondent(s)
-
1.State by Davanagere Rural PS (Police Station) Advocate - Public Prosecutor
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
01-Apr-2026
JudgmentView PDF
Summary of Case 76/2025 The Principal District and Sessions Judge Davanagere acquitted all four appellants (Kumar, Ramesh Kumar, Maruti P, and Suresh) of charges under IPC Sections 448, 323, 324, 504, 506 (read with Section 34), finding major contradictions in prosecution evidence regarding their presence and intent. The appellate court identified critical flaws: the alleged principal accused's wife (PW.4) stated he was absent on the incident date, independent witnesses turned hostile, medical evidence didn't correlate with the seizure report, and the underlying matrimonial dispute (with a partition suit pending) suggested family conflict rather than criminal intent. The court also noted procedural irregularities in the trial court's sentencing process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
01-Apr-2026
Disposed
Prl District And Sessions Judge Davangere
-
28-Mar-2026
Judgement Criminal
Prl District And Sessions Judge Davangere
-
27-Mar-2026
Judgement Criminal
Prl District And Sessions Judge Davangere
-
25-Mar-2026
Judgement Criminal
Prl District And Sessions Judge Davangere
-
18-Mar-2026
Judgement Criminal
Prl District And Sessions Judge Davangere
-
16-Mar-2026
Judgement Criminal
Prl District And Sessions Judge Davangere
-
13-Mar-2026
Judgement Criminal
Prl District And Sessions Judge Davangere
-
02-Mar-2026
Judgement Criminal
Prl District And Sessions Judge Davangere
-
19-Feb-2026
Arguments Criminal
Prl District And Sessions Judge Davangere
-
17-Feb-2026
Arguments Criminal
Prl District And Sessions Judge Davangere
-
05-Feb-2026
Arguments Criminal
Prl District And Sessions Judge Davangere
-
19-Jan-2026
Arguments Criminal
Prl District And Sessions Judge Davangere
-
20-Dec-2025
Arguments Criminal
Prl District And Sessions Judge Davangere
-
09-Dec-2025
Arguments Criminal
Prl District And Sessions Judge Davangere
-
25-Nov-2025
Arguments Criminal
Prl District And Sessions Judge Davangere
-
17-Nov-2025
Arguments Criminal
Prl District And Sessions Judge Davangere
-
05-Nov-2025
Arguments Criminal
Prl District And Sessions Judge Davangere
-
06-Oct-2025
Arguments Criminal
Prl District And Sessions Judge Davangere
-
12-Sep-2025
Arguments Criminal
Prl District And Sessions Judge Davangere
-
06-Aug-2025
Call On
Prl District And Sessions Judge Davangere
-
16-Jul-2025
Objections To I.A.
Prl District And Sessions Judge Davangere
-
09-Jul-2025
Objections To I.A.
Prl District And Sessions Judge Davangere
-
21-Jun-2025
Hearing
Prl District And Sessions Judge Davangere
-
05-May-2025
Hearing
Prl District And Sessions Judge Davangere
-
24-Apr-2025
Hearing
Prl District And Sessions Judge Davangere
-
28-Mar-2025
Hearing
Prl District And Sessions Judge Davangere
-
26-Mar-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
25-Mar-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 76/2025
Summary of Case 76/2025 The Principal District and Sessions Judge Davanagere acquitted all four appellants (Kumar, Ramesh Kumar, Maruti P, and Suresh) of charges under IPC Sections 448, 323, 324, 504, 506 (read with Section 34), finding major contradictions in prosecution evidence regarding their presence and intent. The appellate court identified critical flaws: the alleged principal accused's wife (PW.4) stated he was absent on the incident date, independent witnesses turned hostile, medical evidence didn't correlate with the seizure report, and the underlying matrimonial dispute (with a partition suit pending) suggested family conflict rather than criminal intent. The court also noted procedural irregularities in the trial court's sentencing process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts