State vs Kana urf Kanheya Lal Advocate - Aarif Ali — 172/2023

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 341, 323, 452, 34. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 27th March 2026.

Case disposed

Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR

CNR: RJBD140003222023

Filing Number

321/2023

Filing Date

22-Sep-2023

Registration No

172/2023

Registration Date

22-Sep-2023

Court

JM Indergarh Taluka

Judge

1-Jm

Decision Date

27-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 05-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

106

Police Station

Indergarh

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 341, 323, 452, 34

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State

    Adv. APO

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Kana urf Kanheya Lal Advocate - Aarif Ali

  2. 2.Rakesh

  3. 3.Rampal

  4. 4.Seema

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 27-Mar-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court, Indragarh (Rajasthan) acquitted all four accused persons—Kanha Urf Kunhaiyalal, Rakesh, Rampal, and Seema—of charges under IPC sections 341, 323, 452, 504, and 34. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused assaulted the complainant (Chotulal) and his wife (Dholabai) on June 9, 2023, as the evidence presented, primarily from family members, appeared biased and lacked corroboration from independent witnesses. The court noted inconsistencies in witness accounts regarding injuries and circumstances, observing that the complainant had filed a counter-case against the accused's son, suggesting a family dispute rather than substantiated criminal conduct. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 27-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Jm

  4. 24-Mar-2026

    Final arguments

    Jm

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    Final arguments

    Jm

  6. 27-Feb-2026

    Final arguments

    Jm

  7. 25-Feb-2026

    Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.

    Jm

  8. 24-Feb-2026

    Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.

    Jm

  9. 11-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  10. 09-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  11. 30-Jan-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  12. 09-Jan-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  13. 25-Nov-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  14. 24-Oct-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  15. 08-Sep-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  16. 05-Aug-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  17. 30-Jun-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  18. 21-May-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  19. 06-May-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  20. 02-Apr-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  21. 10-Mar-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  22. 20-Jan-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  23. 02-Dec-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  24. 22-Oct-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  25. 09-Sep-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  26. 30-Jul-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  27. 25-Jun-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  28. 23-May-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  29. 29-Apr-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  30. 13-Feb-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  31. 11-Dec-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  32. 07-Oct-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  33. 22-Sep-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 172/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Judicial Magistrate Court, Indragarh (Rajasthan) acquitted all four accused persons—Kanha Urf Kunhaiyalal, Rakesh, Rampal, and Seema—of charges under IPC sections 341, 323, 452, 504, and 34. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused assaulted the complainant (Chotulal) and his wife (Dholabai) on June 9, 2023, as the evidence presented, primarily from family members, appeared biased and lacked corroboration from independent witnesses. The court noted inconsistencies in witness accounts regarding injuries and circumstances, observing that the complainant had filed a counter-case against the accused's son, suggesting a family dispute rather than substantiated criminal conduct. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case