The State Through Yedrami PS vs Veena W/o Gururaj Hurgadli. Age. 49 Yrs. Occ. Household. R/o Golgeri. Tq. Sindagi. Dist. Vijayapur. — 661/2022
Case under Indian Penal Code Section U/Sec.447,323,504,506,509R/w34. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 06th March 2026.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES
CNR: KAKB620011422022
Filing Number
661/2022
Filing Date
04-07-2022
Registration No
661/2022
Registration Date
05-07-2022
Court
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JEVARGI
Judge
328-CIVIL JUDGE JMFC,Jewargi
Decision Date
06th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State Through Yedrami PS (Police Station)
Adv. Assistant Public Prosecutor
Respondent(s)
Veena W/o Gururaj Hurgadli. Age. 49 Yrs. Occ. Household. R/o Golgeri. Tq. Sindagi. Dist. Vijayapur.
Hanamanth S/o Mareppa Yantaman. Age. 55 Yrs. Occ. Cooli. R/o Honnalli. Tq. Sindagi. Dist. Vijayapur.
Hearing History
Judge: 328-CIVIL JUDGE JMFC,Jewargi
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
ARGUMENTS-CRIMINAL
ACCUSSED STATEMENT u/s 313 CrPC
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 05-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 24-02-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 18-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS-CRIMINAL |
| 16-02-2026 | ACCUSSED STATEMENT u/s 313 CrPC |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Court Judgment The Jewargi JMFC court acquitted all three accused under IPC Sections 447, 323, 504, 509, 506, and 34 in a land dispute case involving alleged trespassing, assault, and criminal intimidation. The court found the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, citing inconsistencies in witness testimonies, civil disputes underlying the case, and insufficient evidence of specific threatening language used. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary of Court Judgment The Jewargi JMFC court acquitted all three accused under IPC Sections 447, 323, 504, 509, 506, and 34 in a land dispute case involving alleged trespassing, assault, and criminal intimidation. The court found the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, citing inconsistencies in witness testimonies, civil disputes underlying the case, and insufficient evidence of specific threatening language used. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts