State vs Bajrang lal — 2918/2014
Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 13th March 2026.
Cro - Criminal Orginal
CNR: RJBK080007282014
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
Disposed
Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts