State vs KAMAL — 522/2017
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 279,337. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 19th March 2026.
Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR
CNR: RJAL160010052017
Filing Number
990/2017
Filing Date
02-05-2016
Registration No
522/2017
Registration Date
02-05-2016
Court
ACJM JM Rajgarh
Judge
3-CJ (JD) JM, Rajgarh
Decision Date
19th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
24
Police Station
RAJGARH
Year
2016
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
KAMAL
Hearing History
Judge: 3-CJ (JD) JM, Rajgarh
Disposed
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 19-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Final arguments |
| 07-03-2026 | Final arguments |
| 04-03-2026 | Final arguments |
| 17-02-2026 | Final arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State v. Kamal (Case 522/2017) The court acquitted the accused, Kamal Singh, of charges under IPC Sections 279, 337, and 304A in a fatal vehicular collision case. Though evidence established that a truck (Registration No. ARJ 02 JP 5198) struck a car on January 26, 2016, causing three deaths, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused operated the truck recklessly or with criminal negligence. The sole eyewitness (the car owner) could not identify the truck driver, and no other witness directly observed the collision mechanics or the driver's conduct, leaving reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State v. Kamal (Case 522/2017) The court acquitted the accused, Kamal Singh, of charges under IPC Sections 279, 337, and 304A in a fatal vehicular collision case. Though evidence established that a truck (Registration No. ARJ 02 JP 5198) struck a car on January 26, 2016, causing three deaths, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused operated the truck recklessly or with criminal negligence. The sole eyewitness (the car owner) could not identify the truck driver, and no other witness directly observed the collision mechanics or the driver's conduct, leaving reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts