State vs MUKESH Advocate - Subhash Chand Sharma — 31/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 323 341 325 324. Disposed: Contested--Acquittal by Compromise on 24th April 2026.
Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR
CNR: RJAL360000982024
Filing Number
31/2024
Filing Date
17-01-2024
Registration No
31/2024
Registration Date
17-01-2024
Court
CJ JM Kherli Mandi HQ
Judge
1-Civil Judge and JM
Decision Date
24th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquittal by Compromise
FIR Details
FIR Number
598
Police Station
KHERLI
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State
Adv. APO
Respondent(s)
MUKESH Advocate - Subhash Chand Sharma
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge and JM
Appearance of accused
Disposed
Judgment
Judgment
Judgment
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | Appearance of accused |
| 24-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 10-04-2026 | Judgment |
| 30-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 16-03-2026 | Judgment |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 31/2024 Court Decision: The court acquitted defendant Mukesh under IPC Section 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon or means) due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mukesh intentionally assaulted the complainant with a weapon. Key Reasoning: The complainant's testimony stated he fell on stones during a scuffle rather than being struck by weapons. The court found the prosecution witnesses (especially Witnesses 2 and 3) were biased and contradictory, failing to corroborate the allegation of armed assault. Medical evidence and site investigation did not conclusively establish weapon-based injuries. The complainant had also filed a compromise petition under Section 320(1)(2) CrPC on 15.12.2025, which was verified by the court, further supporting acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 31/2024 Court Decision: The court acquitted defendant Mukesh under IPC Section 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon or means) due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mukesh intentionally assaulted the complainant with a weapon. Key Reasoning: The complainant's testimony stated he fell on stones during a scuffle rather than being struck by weapons. The court found the prosecution witnesses (especially Witnesses 2 and 3) were biased and contradictory, failing to corroborate the allegation of armed assault. Medical evidence and site investigation did not conclusively establish weapon-based injuries. The complainant had also filed a compromise petition under Section 320(1)(2) CrPC on 15.12.2025, which was verified by the court, further supporting acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts