State vs raju Advocate - Ramkishan Prajapati — 151/2021

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 279,337,338,. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 10th March 2026.

Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR

CNR: RJBD080002572021

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

257/2021

Filing Date

11-02-2021

Registration No

151/2021

Registration Date

11-02-2021

Court

ACJM JM K Patan Taluka

Judge

2-ACJM

Decision Date

10th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

FIR Details

FIR Number

544

Police Station

K.Patan

Year

2019

Acts & Sections

INDIAN PENAL CODE Section 279,337,338,
Motor Vehicles Act Section 185,3/181

Petitioner(s)

State

Adv. PROSECUTION OFFICER

Respondent(s)

raju Advocate - Ramkishan Prajapati

mishrilal

Hearing History

Judge: 2-ACJM

10-03-2026

Disposed

09-03-2026

Final arguments

07-03-2026

Prosecution Evidence

27-02-2026

Prosecution Evidence

20-02-2026

Prosecution Evidence

Final Orders / Judgements

10-03-2026
Plaint/Petition/Appealmemo

Court Decision Summary The court acquitted accused Raju of charges under IPC Sections 279, 337, 338 (rash/negligent driving causing hurt) and Motor Vehicles Act Sections 185, 3/181. The court found that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the accused recklessly drove the motorcycle that hit the victim, noting critical evidentiary gaps: the victim could not identify the vehicle number or driver, no independent eyewitness corroborated the accident, and no medical evidence confirmed drunk driving. Due to reasonable doubt, the accused was acquitted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

05-02-2026
casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The court acquitted accused Raju of charges under IPC Sections 279, 337, 338 (rash/negligent driving causing hurt) and Motor Vehicles Act Sections 185, 3/181. The court found that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the accused recklessly drove the motorcycle that hit the victim, noting critical evidentiary gaps: the victim could not identify the vehicle number or driver, no independent eyewitness corroborated the accident, and no medical evidence confirmed drunk driving. Due to reasonable doubt, the accused was acquitted. 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

ACJM JM K Patan Taluka All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case