State vs Pappuram Advocate - Sh. manak chand bhati — 194/2016

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 279,337,338. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 23rd March 2026.

Case disposed

Cro - Criminal Orginal

CNR: RJCH130003812016

Filing Number

452/2016

Filing Date

25-Jun-2016

Registration No

194/2016

Registration Date

25-Jun-2016

Court

CJM ACJM JM SARDARSHAHAR COURT COMPLEX

Judge

1-Jm

Decision Date

23-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 31-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

61

Police Station

APTPS Electricity Churu

Year

2016

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 279,337,338

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State

    Adv. APO

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Pappuram Advocate - Sh. manak chand bhati

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Mar-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Case Summary: State v. Pappuram (Case 194/2016) Decision: The court acquitted the accused Pappuram on March 23, 2026, finding insufficient evidence under IPC sections 279, 337, and 338 (rash driving causing hurt). The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Pappuram operated the motorcycle involved in the incident, as key witnesses—including the injured party and eyewitnesses—either contradicted their police statements during cross-examination or denied witnessing the accident, and the investigator provided no identification evidence linking Pappuram to the vehicle. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Jm

  4. 19-Mar-2026

    Final arguments

    Jm

  5. 13-Mar-2026

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

    Jm

  6. 19-Feb-2026

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

    Jm

  7. 07-Feb-2026

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

    Jm

  8. 09-Dec-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  9. 29-Oct-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  10. 03-Sep-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  11. 11-Aug-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  12. 02-Jun-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  13. 24-Mar-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  14. 30-Jan-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  15. 05-Dec-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  16. 21-Sep-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  17. 26-Jun-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  18. 25-Jan-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  19. 29-Sep-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  20. 14-Jul-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  21. 03-May-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  22. 21-Mar-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  23. 19-Jan-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  24. 28-Nov-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  25. 13-Oct-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  26. 08-Sep-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  27. 01-Aug-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  28. 18-May-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  29. 27-Jan-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  30. 22-Oct-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  31. 14-Jul-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  32. 31-Mar-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  33. 04-Nov-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  34. 20-Jul-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  35. 20-Apr-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  36. 18-Dec-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  37. 13-Sep-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  38. 21-Jun-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  39. 10-Apr-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  40. 05-Dec-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  41. 01-Jun-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  42. 13-Nov-2017

    Prosecution Evidence

    Jm

  43. 05-Jun-2017

    Evidence

    Jm

  44. 23-Jan-2017

    Evidence

    Jm

  45. 29-Aug-2016

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  46. 25-Jun-2016

    Case filed

    Registration No. 194/2016

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State v. Pappuram (Case 194/2016) Decision: The court acquitted the accused Pappuram on March 23, 2026, finding insufficient evidence under IPC sections 279, 337, and 338 (rash driving causing hurt). The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Pappuram operated the motorcycle involved in the incident, as key witnesses—including the injured party and eyewitnesses—either contradicted their police statements during cross-examination or denied witnessing the accident, and the investigator provided no identification evidence linking Pappuram to the vehicle. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case