STATE vs MANISH SHARMA Advocate - INAYAT HUSAIN — 2/2020
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 147,148,149,323,325,459. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 13th March 2026.
Session Case
CNR: RJDS010000192020
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
13/2020
Filing Date
04-01-2020
Registration No
2/2020
Registration Date
04-01-2020
Court
DJ ADJ Dausa District HQ
Judge
3-ADJ
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
292
Police Station
SADAR, DAUSA
Year
2019
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE
Adv. ADD.P.P.
Respondent(s)
MANISH SHARMA Advocate - INAYAT HUSAIN
ramesh
rambabu
Krishana Urf Kala
vijay urf teku
Hearing History
Judge: 3-ADJ
Disposed
Final arguments
Final arguments
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Service of Non-bailable warrant
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 12-03-2026 | Final arguments | |
| 11-03-2026 | Final arguments | |
| 10-03-2026 | Service of Non-bailable warrant | |
| 07-03-2026 | Service of Non-bailable warrant |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary Court: Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa District, Rajasthan Case: Session Case No. 02/2020, Rajasthan State v. Manish & Others Judgment Date: June 6, 2025 (for defendants Manish, Ramesh, Krishn, and Vijay) and March 13, 2026 (for defendant Rambaboo) Decision All five accused persons were acquitted (found not guilty) of charges under IPC Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 325/149, and 459. Key Reasoning The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to: 1. Identification Issues: Witness testimony established that perpetrators had their faces covered; only one accused (Vijay/Tekboo) could be clearly identified. 2. Contradictory Evidence: Witnesses gave conflicting statements about incident details, perpetrator descriptions, and their own observations. 3. Inadequate Medical Evidence: Medical reports suggested injuries could result from falls or other causes, not necessarily beatings with weapons as alleged. 4. Procedural Flaws: Identification parades conducted months after arrest, without proper dummy parades; accused transported without proper records. 5. Weak Physical Evidence: Recovered items (sticks, mobiles, vehicle) linked to crime scene through questionable means; location easily accessible to public. 6. Insufficient Chain of Evidence: No clear proof connecting specific accused to specific weapons or injuries; allegations remained general and collective rather than individual. The court upheld the established legal principle that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt and that benefit of doubt must favor the accused when evidence is ambiguous or contradictory. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts