Yadgir Rural PS vs Sabanna Advocate - S.B.PATIL — 59/2016
Case under Sec of Ipc Section 302,201,120B,RW,149,of,IPC. Status: EVIDENCE-CRIMINAL. Next hearing: 12th June 2026.
SC - SESSION CASES
CNR: KAYG010007192016
Next Hearing
12th June 2026
Filing Number
59/2016
Filing Date
13-07-2016
Registration No
59/2016
Registration Date
13-07-2016
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, YADGIR
Judge
1568-I ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,YADGIR
FIR Details
FIR Number
0296
Police Station
YADGIRI RURAL PS
Year
2015
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Yadgir Rural PS (Police Station)
Adv. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Respondent(s)
Sabanna Advocate - S.B.PATIL
Hanumantha
Monappa
Mallappa
Subhash
Ramesh
Hearing History
Judge: 1568-I ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,YADGIR
EVIDENCE-CRIMINAL
EVIDENCE-CRIMINAL
EVIDENCE-CRIMINAL
EVIDENCE-CRIMINAL
EVIDENCE-CRIMINAL
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 14-05-2026 | EVIDENCE-CRIMINAL |
| 02-05-2026 | EVIDENCE-CRIMINAL |
| 24-04-2026 | EVIDENCE-CRIMINAL |
| 09-04-2026 | EVIDENCE-CRIMINAL |
| 13-03-2026 | EVIDENCE-CRIMINAL |
Interim Orders
Summary of Case 59/2016 This case involves the examination of witnesses in what appears to be a criminal matter with six accused persons. On 13-10-2025, the court heard cross-examination arguments from counsel representing the accused. Defense counsel challenged the credibility of witness testimony regarding key evidentiary matters, including the circumstances of a postmortem examination, seizure of evidence, and the presence of accused at specific locations. The court admitted certain objections raised by the defense and recorded that no re-examination was required. The case involves disputed factual accounts between police investigations and defense claims regarding witness veracity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 59/2016 This case involves the examination of witnesses in what appears to be a criminal matter with six accused persons. On 13-10-2025, the court heard cross-examination arguments from counsel representing the accused. Defense counsel challenged the credibility of witness testimony regarding key evidentiary matters, including the circumstances of a postmortem examination, seizure of evidence, and the presence of accused at specific locations. The court admitted certain objections raised by the defense and recorded that no re-examination was required. The case involves disputed factual accounts between police investigations and defense claims regarding witness veracity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts