Rajasthan Government vs Ramlal etc — 2220/2014

Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

Cro - Criminal Orginal

CNR: RJBK080001602013

Filing Number

1798/2014

Filing Date

11-Feb-2013

Registration No

2220/2014

Registration Date

11-Feb-2013

Court

ACJM JM Nokha Taluka HQ criminal

Judge

1-Acjm

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 31-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

45/13

Police Station

Nokha Police Station

Year

2013

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Rajasthan Government

    Adv. App II

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Ramlal etc

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    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.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Acjm

  4. 27-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  5. 23-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  6. 17-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  7. 12-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  8. 03-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  9. 22-Jan-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  10. 09-Jan-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  11. 19-Dec-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  12. 21-Nov-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  13. 29-Oct-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  14. 20-Sep-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  15. 14-Aug-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  16. 02-Jul-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  17. 08-May-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  18. 09-Apr-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  19. 03-Mar-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  20. 22-Jan-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  21. 14-Nov-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  22. 18-Sep-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  23. 25-Jul-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  24. 24-Jun-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  25. 30-Apr-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  26. 12-Mar-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  27. 24-Jan-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  28. 01-Dec-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  29. 13-Sep-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  30. 14-Jun-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  31. 06-Apr-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  32. 03-Feb-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  33. 02-Jan-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  34. 01-Nov-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  35. 13-Sep-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  36. 19-Jul-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  37. 04-Jun-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  38. 29-Mar-2022

    Service of Summons/bailable warrant

    Acjm

  39. 06-Jan-2022

    Service of Summons/bailable warrant

    Acjm

  40. 06-Oct-2021

    Service of Summons/bailable warrant

    Acjm

  41. 24-May-2021

    Service of Summons/bailable warrant

    Acjm

  42. 21-Jan-2021

    Service of Summons/bailable warrant

    Acjm

  43. 09-Sep-2020

    Service of Summons/bailable warrant

    Acjm

  44. 20-May-2020

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Acjm

  45. 05-Mar-2020

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Acjm

  46. 03-Dec-2019

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Acjm

  47. 09-Sep-2019

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Acjm

  48. 07-Sep-2019

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Acjm

  49. 29-May-2019

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Acjm

  50. 05-Feb-2019

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Acjm

  51. 15-Dec-2018

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Acjm

  52. 13-Sep-2018

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Acjm

  53. 17-Jul-2018

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Acjm

  54. 13-Mar-2018

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Acjm

  55. 11-Dec-2017

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Acjm

  56. 09-Oct-2017

    Hearing arguments on Charge

    Acjm

  57. 04-Sep-2017

    Charge

    Acjm

  58. 21-Aug-2017

    Charge

    Acjm

  59. 19-Jun-2017

    Charge

    Acjm

  60. 22-May-2017

    Charge

    Acjm

  61. 01-May-2017

    Charge

    Acjm

  62. 17-Apr-2017

    Charge

    Acjm

  63. 20-Mar-2017

    Charge

    Acjm

  64. 07-Nov-2016

    Charge

    Acjm

  65. 05-Sep-2016

    Charge

    Acjm

  66. 02-May-2016

    Charge

    Acjm

  67. 21-Mar-2016

    Charge

    Acjm

  68. 16-Dec-2015

    Charge

    Acjm

  69. 04-Nov-2015

    Charge

    Acjm

  70. 12-Aug-2015

    Charge

    Acjm

  71. 24-Apr-2015

    Charge

    Acjm

  72. 03-Dec-2014

    Charge

    Acjm

  73. 06-Aug-2014

    Charge

    Acjm

  74. 24-Jun-2014

    Charge

    Acjm

  75. 20-May-2014

    Charge

    Acjm

  76. 25-Jan-2014

    Charge

    Acjm

  77. 08-Oct-2013

    Charge

  78. 09-Jul-2013

    Charge

  79. 02-Mar-2013

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  80. 11-Feb-2013

    Case filed

    Registration No. 2220/2014

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case