STATE vs devaram Advocate - RAHUL KUMAR JAIN — 1940/2022

Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 24th March 2026.

Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR

CNR: RJBA020030272022

Case disposed

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

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

24-03-2026
JUDGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

ACJM JM Balotra District HQ All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case