State vs Anil Advocate - Shri Pradeep Kumar Jhajhariya — 21/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 279,304a. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed

Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR

CNR: RJJH140000552024

Filing Number

53/2024

Filing Date

31-Jan-2024

Registration No

21/2024

Registration Date

31-Jan-2024

Court

Gram Nayayalaya Nawalgarh

Judge

1-Nyayadhikari

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 27-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

294

Police Station

Nawalgarh police station

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 279,304a

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State

    Adv. Apo

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Anil Advocate - Shri Pradeep Kumar Jhajhariya

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Case Summary: State v. Anil Kumar (Case 21/2024) Court Decision: The Village Court of Navalgadh acquitted defendant Anil Kumar of charges under IPC Sections 279 (rash driving) and 304A (causing death by negligence), granting him the benefit of doubt. Key Reasoning: The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was driving the pickup vehicle involved in the fatal accident. Witness testimony and investigation records revealed that the vehicle causing the accident was actually the accused's motorcycle, not a pickup truck as initially reported. Multiple witnesses either contradicted the prosecution narrative or refused to testify. The investigation officer himself admitted during cross-examination that no pickup vehicle was involved—the vehicle was a motorcycle (RJ 18 PS 4664). Without establishing the accused as the vehicle operator at the time of the accident, the prosecution could not prove the requisite elements of rash/negligent driving causing death. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Nyayadhikari

  4. 09-Apr-2026

    Judgment

    Nyayadhikari

  5. 12-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  6. 12-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  7. 20-Jan-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  8. 23-Dec-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  9. 27-Nov-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  10. 30-Oct-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  11. 17-Sep-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  12. 13-Aug-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  13. 16-Jul-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  14. 10-Jun-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  15. 30-Apr-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  16. 18-Mar-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  17. 13-Feb-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  18. 04-Jan-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  19. 08-Nov-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  20. 19-Sep-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  21. 06-Aug-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  22. 26-Jun-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  23. 18-May-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Nyayadhikari

  24. 27-Mar-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  25. 31-Jan-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 21/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State v. Anil Kumar (Case 21/2024) Court Decision: The Village Court of Navalgadh acquitted defendant Anil Kumar of charges under IPC Sections 279 (rash driving) and 304A (causing death by negligence), granting him the benefit of doubt. Key Reasoning: The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was driving the pickup vehicle involved in the fatal accident. Witness testimony and investigation records revealed that the vehicle causing the accident was actually the accused's motorcycle, not a pickup truck as initially reported. Multiple witnesses either contradicted the prosecution narrative or refused to testify. The investigation officer himself admitted during cross-examination that no pickup vehicle was involved—the vehicle was a motorcycle (RJ 18 PS 4664). Without establishing the accused as the vehicle operator at the time of the accident, the prosecution could not prove the requisite elements of rash/negligent driving causing death. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case