STATE vs devaram Advocate - RAHUL KUMAR JAIN — 1940/2022
Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 24th March 2026.
Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR
CNR: RJBA020030272022
Filing Number
3021/2022
Filing Date
10-10-2022
Registration No
1940/2022
Registration Date
10-10-2022
Court
ACJM JM Balotra District HQ
Judge
2-ACJM I Balotra
Decision Date
24th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
430
Police Station
BALOTRA POLICE STATION
Year
2022
Petitioner(s)
STATE
Adv. APO I
Respondent(s)
devaram Advocate - RAHUL KUMAR JAIN
Hearing History
Judge: 2-ACJM I Balotra
Disposed
Final arguments
Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 18-03-2026 | Final arguments |
| 13-03-2026 | Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. |
| 23-02-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
| 20-02-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State v. Devaram (FIR 1940/2022) The court acquitted defendant Devaram of charges under IPC Sections 279, 337, 338 and MV Act Sections 132/187, 134/187, 184, finding the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was the driver of the vehicle (car bearing registration ARJ 39 GUP 1935) involved in a road accident on 27.06.2022. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps: the victim's statement and FIR did not identify the vehicle's driver by name, the eyewitness could not confirm the driver's identity, and no conclusive evidence linked Devaram to operating the vehicle at the time of the incident. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State v. Devaram (FIR 1940/2022) The court acquitted defendant Devaram of charges under IPC Sections 279, 337, 338 and MV Act Sections 132/187, 134/187, 184, finding the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was the driver of the vehicle (car bearing registration ARJ 39 GUP 1935) involved in a road accident on 27.06.2022. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps: the victim's statement and FIR did not identify the vehicle's driver by name, the eyewitness could not confirm the driver's identity, and no conclusive evidence linked Devaram to operating the vehicle at the time of the incident. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts