Rajasthan Government vs Ramlal etc — 2220/2014
Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 13th March 2026.
Cro - Criminal Orginal
CNR: RJBK080001602013
Filing Number
1798/2014
Filing Date
11-02-2013
Registration No
2220/2014
Registration Date
11-02-2013
Court
ACJM JM Nokha Taluka HQ criminal
Judge
1-ACJM
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
45/13
Police Station
Nokha Police Station
Year
2013
Petitioner(s)
Rajasthan Government
Adv. App II
Respondent(s)
Ramlal etc
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ACJM
Disposed
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 27-02-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
| 23-02-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
| 17-02-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
| 12-02-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Rajasthan Government v. Ramlal (2220/2014) Decision: The court acquitted accused Ramlal of charges under IPC Sections 323, 341, 325 read with Section 34, finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: Although medical evidence confirmed injury to the victim Sukharam, the prosecution's eyewitnesses (including victim's wife Geeta Devi and mother Lakshmi Devi) contradicted the FIR narrative during cross-examination. The vital witness—the injured victim himself—died before trial. The court found the prosecution witnesses were biased, inconsistent in their accounts, and failed to establish the accused's guilt with certainty, relying instead on emotions rather than reliable evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Rajasthan Government v. Ramlal (2220/2014) Decision: The court acquitted accused Ramlal of charges under IPC Sections 323, 341, 325 read with Section 34, finding the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: Although medical evidence confirmed injury to the victim Sukharam, the prosecution's eyewitnesses (including victim's wife Geeta Devi and mother Lakshmi Devi) contradicted the FIR narrative during cross-examination. The vital witness—the injured victim himself—died before trial. The court found the prosecution witnesses were biased, inconsistent in their accounts, and failed to establish the accused's guilt with certainty, relying instead on emotions rather than reliable evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts