State vs AAKASH ETC Advocate - Nilesh Samriya — 373/2023

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 379. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 27th March 2026.

Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR

CNR: RJBD080009712023

Case disposed

Filing Number

970/2023

Filing Date

21-08-2023

Registration No

373/2023

Registration Date

21-08-2023

Court

ACJM JM K Patan Taluka

Judge

2-ACJM

Decision Date

27th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

FIR Details

FIR Number

134

Police Station

K.Patan

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

INDIAN PENAL CODE Section 379

Petitioner(s)

State

Adv. PROSECUTION OFFICER

Respondent(s)

AAKASH ETC Advocate - Nilesh Samriya

SHIVA

Adv. Mahendra Singh Gaur

Hearing History

Judge: 2-ACJM

27-03-2026

Disposed

25-03-2026

Final arguments

19-03-2026

Final arguments

16-03-2026

Final arguments

25-02-2026

Final arguments

Final Orders / Judgements

27-03-2026
Judgement

Case Summary: State v. Aakash & Shiva (Case 373/2023) The court acquitted both accused, Aakash and Shiva, of theft charges under IPC Section 379. Although the prosecution presented ten witnesses and circumstantial evidence including FIR reports, site plans, and seizure documents, the court found the case riddled with reasonable doubt. The key weakness was that no independent eyewitness directly observed the accused stealing government property (iron railings) from a municipal building on May 1, 2023, and critical evidence—including alleged video footage of the theft—was never produced before the court despite being referenced in the prosecution narrative. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State v. Aakash & Shiva (Case 373/2023) The court acquitted both accused, Aakash and Shiva, of theft charges under IPC Section 379. Although the prosecution presented ten witnesses and circumstantial evidence including FIR reports, site plans, and seizure documents, the court found the case riddled with reasonable doubt. The key weakness was that no independent eyewitness directly observed the accused stealing government property (iron railings) from a municipal building on May 1, 2023, and critical evidence—including alleged video footage of the theft—was never produced before the court despite being referenced in the prosecution narrative. 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