Rajasthan Goverment vs amirt lal Advocate - jayesh — 24/2021
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 341,504,34,. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 02nd April 2026.
Session Case
CNR: RJBR050000512021
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
51/2021
Filing Date
27-01-2021
Registration No
24/2021
Registration Date
27-01-2021
Court
SCST Baran HQ
Judge
2-Judge Spl Court
Decision Date
02nd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
230
Police Station
Sadar Police Station, Baran
Year
2020
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rajasthan Goverment
Adv. spp
Respondent(s)
amirt lal Advocate - jayesh
ramsiya bai
Adv. jayesh
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Judge Spl Court
Disposed
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 02-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 23-03-2026 | Prosecution Evidence | |
| 09-03-2026 | Prosecution Evidence | |
| 04-03-2026 | Prosecution Evidence | |
| 01-12-2025 | Prosecution Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary State v. Amritlal and Ramsiiya (Session Case 24/2021) The Special Judge for SC/ST (Atrocity Prevention) Act at Baran acquitted both accused Amritlal and Ramsiiya of charges under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Atrocity Prevention) Act, 1989. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused used caste-based abusive language or intentionally humiliated the complainant in a public place, as all three prosecution witnesses (including the complainant himself) either denied or contradicted the allegations of caste-based abusive speech during their court testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary State v. Amritlal and Ramsiiya (Session Case 24/2021) The Special Judge for SC/ST (Atrocity Prevention) Act at Baran acquitted both accused Amritlal and Ramsiiya of charges under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Atrocity Prevention) Act, 1989. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused used caste-based abusive language or intentionally humiliated the complainant in a public place, as all three prosecution witnesses (including the complainant himself) either denied or contradicted the allegations of caste-based abusive speech during their court testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts