STATE GOVT. vs SATYAPRAKASH Advocate - NOHBAT SINGH — 61/2018

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 302,498A,323. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 09th April 2026.

Case disposed

Session Case

CNR: RJBH070009882018

Filing Number

458/2018

Filing Date

20-Dec-2018

Registration No

61/2018

Registration Date

20-Dec-2018

Court

ADJ Bayana Taluka

Judge

2-ADJ II

Decision Date

09-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 16-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

409

Police Station

PS ROOPBAS

Year

2018

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 302,498A,323

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE GOVT.

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SATYAPRAKASH Advocate - NOHBAT SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Court Summary The court acquitted the accused, Satyaprakash (also known as Setoli), of all charges under IPC Sections 302 (murder), 498A (cruelty), and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) dated 09.04.2026. The case involved the death of the accused's wife, Radha, who suffered severe burn injuries. While the victim gave a dying declaration claiming the accused poured kerosene and set her on fire, the court found the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Key factors influencing the acquittal included: inconsistencies in the victim's statements, the victim's documented history of mental illness and previous suicide attempts, lack of corroborating eyewitness testimony from family members present at the scene, absence of physical evidence linking the accused to the crime, and the victim's own admission that she set herself on fire. The court emphasized that the dying declaration, though generally credible, must be scrutinized against available evidence and medical findings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    ADJ II

  4. 06-Apr-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  5. 27-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  6. 09-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  7. 20-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  8. 02-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  9. 08-Jan-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  10. 17-Dec-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  11. 14-Nov-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  12. 08-Oct-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  13. 10-Sep-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  14. 23-Jul-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  15. 22-May-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  16. 23-Apr-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  17. 20-Mar-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  18. 06-Mar-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  19. 28-Jan-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  20. 21-Nov-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  21. 06-Nov-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  22. 09-Oct-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  23. 09-Sep-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  24. 26-Jul-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  25. 24-Jun-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  26. 20-May-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  27. 09-Apr-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  28. 06-Feb-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  29. 06-Dec-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  30. 17-Oct-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  31. 04-Aug-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  32. 30-May-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  33. 15-Apr-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  34. 10-Feb-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  35. 24-Nov-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  36. 19-Sep-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  37. 25-Jul-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  38. 23-May-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  39. 09-Mar-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  40. 12-Jan-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  41. 15-Nov-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  42. 08-Sep-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  43. 27-Jul-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  44. 08-Jun-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  45. 26-Mar-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

  46. 21-Jan-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  47. 15-Dec-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  48. 11-Dec-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  49. 09-Nov-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  50. 07-Sep-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  51. 10-Jul-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  52. 10-Jun-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  53. 24-Apr-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  54. 17-Mar-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  55. 20-Jan-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  56. 26-Nov-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  57. 24-Sep-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  58. 19-Aug-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  59. 23-Jul-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  60. 24-Jun-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  61. 14-May-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  62. 11-Apr-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  63. 11-Mar-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    ADJ II

  64. 24-Jan-2019

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  65. 20-Dec-2018

    Case filed

    Registration No. 61/2018

casestatus.in Summary

Court Summary The court acquitted the accused, Satyaprakash (also known as Setoli), of all charges under IPC Sections 302 (murder), 498A (cruelty), and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) dated 09.04.2026. The case involved the death of the accused's wife, Radha, who suffered severe burn injuries. While the victim gave a dying declaration claiming the accused poured kerosene and set her on fire, the court found the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Key factors influencing the acquittal included: inconsistencies in the victim's statements, the victim's documented history of mental illness and previous suicide attempts, lack of corroborating eyewitness testimony from family members present at the scene, absence of physical evidence linking the accused to the crime, and the victim's own admission that she set herself on fire. The court emphasized that the dying declaration, though generally credible, must be scrutinized against available evidence and medical findings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case