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
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
Petitioner(s)
Aasam
Respondent(s)
State
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADJ, Laxmangarh
Disposed
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts