State vs Bajrang lal — 2918/2014

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

Cro - Criminal Orginal

CNR: RJBK080007282014

Case disposed

Filing Number

3012/2014

Filing Date

30-10-2014

Registration No

2918/2014

Registration Date

30-10-2014

Court

ACJM JM Nokha Taluka HQ criminal

Judge

2-Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Nokha

Decision Date

13th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Petitioner(s)

State

Adv. App IInd

Respondent(s)

Bajrang lal

Hearing History

Judge: 2-Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Nokha

13-03-2026

Disposed

05-03-2026

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

07-02-2026

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

23-12-2025

Prosecution Evidence

29-11-2025

Prosecution Evidence

Final Orders / Judgements

13-03-2026
Judgement

Case Summary: State v. Bajrang Lal (CIS 2918/2014) Court Decision: The accused Bajrang Lal was acquitted of charges under IPC Sections 352, 336, 427, 504, and 506, with the benefit of doubt granted due to insufficient evidence proving the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The court found material contradictions in prosecution witnesses' testimonies and FIR statements, particularly regarding the alleged incident on August 14, 2014, where the complainant claimed the accused deliberately rammed his vehicle. Critical witnesses (PWs 1, 3, 6, 7) testified that only general conversation occurred between parties, contradicting the written report's violent allegations. The investigating officer's testimony revealed investigative lapses and unverified claims about recovered vehicle damage. The prosecution failed to establish criminal intent or deliberate criminal act conclusively through oral or documentary evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State v. Bajrang Lal (CIS 2918/2014) Court Decision: The accused Bajrang Lal was acquitted of charges under IPC Sections 352, 336, 427, 504, and 506, with the benefit of doubt granted due to insufficient evidence proving the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The court found material contradictions in prosecution witnesses' testimonies and FIR statements, particularly regarding the alleged incident on August 14, 2014, where the complainant claimed the accused deliberately rammed his vehicle. Critical witnesses (PWs 1, 3, 6, 7) testified that only general conversation occurred between parties, contradicting the written report's violent allegations. The investigating officer's testimony revealed investigative lapses and unverified claims about recovered vehicle damage. The prosecution failed to establish criminal intent or deliberate criminal act conclusively through oral or documentary evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

ACJM JM Nokha Taluka HQ criminal All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case