State vs SHANTILAL Advocate - SH. SHAHID JAMAN KHAN — 35/2022
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 376,452. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 11th March 2026.
Session Case
CNR: RJDG010003852022
Filing Number
309/2022
Filing Date
05-04-2022
Registration No
35/2022
Registration Date
21-04-2022
Court
DJ ADJ Dungarpur District HQ
Judge
1-District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
11th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
95
Police Station
Sadar Dungarpur
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State
Adv. SH. KAUSHIK PANDYA (P.P.)
Respondent(s)
SHANTILAL Advocate - SH. SHAHID JAMAN KHAN
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District and Sessions Judge
Disposed
Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 07-03-2026 | Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. |
| 27-02-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
| 19-02-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
| 10-02-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Session Court in Dungarpur, Rajasthan acquitted the accused Shantilal of charges under IPC Sections 450 (criminal intimidation) and 376 (rape) on March 11, 2026. The court found the prosecution's case rife with contradictions: the victim named the accused based on suspicion rather than certainty, delayed filing her complaint by 16 months without explanation, and provided inconsistent statements across her written report, magistrate examination, and cross-examination. The court also noted the victim failed to immediately inform her husband about the 2019 alleged rape and that both the victim and her husband later filed counter-cases against the accused, suggesting motivated accusations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Session Court in Dungarpur, Rajasthan acquitted the accused Shantilal of charges under IPC Sections 450 (criminal intimidation) and 376 (rape) on March 11, 2026. The court found the prosecution's case rife with contradictions: the victim named the accused based on suspicion rather than certainty, delayed filing her complaint by 16 months without explanation, and provided inconsistent statements across her written report, magistrate examination, and cross-examination. The court also noted the victim failed to immediately inform her husband about the 2019 alleged rape and that both the victim and her husband later filed counter-cases against the accused, suggesting motivated accusations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts