Aasam vs State — 11/2018

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section Appeal. Disposed: Contested--Appeal Allowed, Cross Objection Allowed on 27th March 2026.

Cr. Appeal

CNR: RJAL190002062018

Case disposed

Filing Number

60/2018

Filing Date

19-05-2018

Registration No

11/2018

Registration Date

19-05-2018

Court

ADJ Laxmangarh

Judge

1-ADJ, Laxmangarh

Decision Date

27th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Appeal Allowed, Cross Objection Allowed

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section Appeal

Petitioner(s)

Aasam

Respondent(s)

State

Hearing History

Judge: 1-ADJ, Laxmangarh

27-03-2026

Disposed

24-03-2026

Final arguments

16-03-2026

Final arguments

27-02-2026

Final arguments

16-01-2026

Final arguments

Final Orders / Judgements

27-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

Case Summary: Aasam v. State (11/2018) The High Court of Rajasthan acquitted Aasam Khan of charges under IPC Section 354 (outraging a woman's modesty), finding the prosecution case failed to meet the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The court identified critical inconsistencies in the complainant's FIR and testimony—her account varied significantly between the written complaint and oral statements regarding the sequence of alleged assault. Key witnesses either contradicted the prosecution narrative or had credibility issues due to family ties to the complainant. Additionally, the FIR was filed with unexplained delay, no torn clothing was seized despite being described, and no medical evidence corroborated injuries allegedly sustained. The court concluded the lower court erred in convicting based on incomplete evidence analysis and improper reliance on a single witness's unsupported testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Aasam v. State (11/2018) The High Court of Rajasthan acquitted Aasam Khan of charges under IPC Section 354 (outraging a woman's modesty), finding the prosecution case failed to meet the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The court identified critical inconsistencies in the complainant's FIR and testimony—her account varied significantly between the written complaint and oral statements regarding the sequence of alleged assault. Key witnesses either contradicted the prosecution narrative or had credibility issues due to family ties to the complainant. Additionally, the FIR was filed with unexplained delay, no torn clothing was seized despite being described, and no medical evidence corroborated injuries allegedly sustained. The court concluded the lower court erred in convicting based on incomplete evidence analysis and improper reliance on a single witness's unsupported testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

ADJ Laxmangarh All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case