state of rajasthan vs Vinod etc Advocate - Radhaballab Nagar — 170/2016
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 147,149,341,323,336. Disposed: Contested--Convicted and Released on Probation on 10th March 2026.
Cr.reg - Criminal Regular
CNR: RJBR130002612016
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
319/2016
Filing Date
12-04-2016
Registration No
170/2016
Registration Date
12-04-2016
Court
JM Kishanganj Taluka
Judge
1-JM
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Convicted and Released on Probation
FIR Details
FIR Number
79
Police Station
Kishanganj Police Station
Year
2016
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
state of rajasthan
Adv. APO
Respondent(s)
Vinod etc Advocate - Radhaballab Nagar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JM
Disposed
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 06-03-2026 | Prosecution Evidence | |
| 23-02-2026 | Prosecution Evidence | |
| 20-02-2026 | Prosecution Evidence | |
| 30-01-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Rajasthan court acquitted all five accused persons (Vinod, Babulal, Mojiram, Prakash, and Jodha) of charges under IPC Sections 341, 323, and 336 read with Section 149 (rioting with common object causing hurt). While the court found the prosecution proved that accused Vinod and Babulal assaulted the victim Narendra on 27.03.2016, it acquitted them and four others due to insufficient evidence of a pre-planned unlawful assembly and common intention, granting them probation with conditions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Rajasthan court acquitted all five accused persons (Vinod, Babulal, Mojiram, Prakash, and Jodha) of charges under IPC Sections 341, 323, and 336 read with Section 149 (rioting with common object causing hurt). While the court found the prosecution proved that accused Vinod and Babulal assaulted the victim Narendra on 27.03.2016, it acquitted them and four others due to insufficient evidence of a pre-planned unlawful assembly and common intention, granting them probation with conditions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts