Traffic PS, Hosapete vs Nilesh Jadav S/o Narayana Jadav — 286/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 279,337,338,304(A),. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 07th March 2026.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES
CNR: KAVN050003442024
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
286/2024
Filing Date
13-02-2024
Registration No
286/2024
Registration Date
13-02-2024
Court
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HOSAPETE
Judge
171-ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT HOSAPETE
Decision Date
07th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
72
Police Station
HOSAPETE TRAFFIC PS
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Traffic PS (Police Station), Hosapete
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Nilesh Jadav S/o Narayana Jadav
Hearing History
Judge: 171-ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT HOSAPETE
Disposed
JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER
JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 04-03-2026 | JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER | |
| 26-02-2026 | JUDGMENT/FINAL ORDER | |
| 23-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS | |
| 12-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: The court acquitted Nilesh Jadav of all charges under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304A of the IPC and Section 183 of the Motor Vehicles Act in a fatal motorcycle collision case. The judge found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to discrepancies in witness testimony, conflicting spot location details between the rough sketch and photographs, and the absence of crucial evidence (such as whether the deceased applied turn indicators). The court concluded the deceased bore contributory negligence by not exercising caution while taking a turn, and therefore granted the benefit of doubt to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary: The court acquitted Nilesh Jadav of all charges under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304A of the IPC and Section 183 of the Motor Vehicles Act in a fatal motorcycle collision case. The judge found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to discrepancies in witness testimony, conflicting spot location details between the rough sketch and photographs, and the absence of crucial evidence (such as whether the deceased applied turn indicators). The court concluded the deceased bore contributory negligence by not exercising caution while taking a turn, and therefore granted the benefit of doubt to the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts