STATE vs saroj devi Advocate - SH. SITARAM SAINI — 542/2020

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 341,323,34. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 17th April 2026.

Case disposed

Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR

CNR: RJJH180007862020

Filing Number

724/2020

Filing Date

07-Sep-2020

Registration No

542/2020

Registration Date

07-Sep-2020

Court

JM COURT BUHANA

Judge

13-Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

17-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 27-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

149

Police Station

Buhana

Year

2020

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 341,323,34

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE

    Adv. apo

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.saroj devi Advocate - SH. SITARAM SAINI

  2. 2.suman

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Apr-2026

    Copy of document.

    Case Summary: State v. Saroj Devi & Suman (Cr. Reg. Case 542/2020) Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate acquitted both accused—Saroj Devi (wife of Surender, age 40) and Suman Devi (wife of Vijendra, age 45)—of charges under IPC Sections 341, 323 read with 34 (criminal intimidation, voluntarily causing hurt, and common intention), finding insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The court identified serious contradictions in the prosecution's case, particularly regarding which individuals actually assaulted the complainants. While witness PW-02 (Rajesh Kumar, the injured party) testified that he was beaten along with his mother, he also stated that his brothers Sanjay and Naresh participated in the assault—yet these individuals were never charged. Similarly, witness PW-04 (Mali Devi, his mother) gave inconsistent statements about who attacked her. The court found these material inconsistencies rendered the prosecution narrative unreliable, especially when one witness was declared hostile and the medical evidence could be explained by accidental falls, warranting acquittal under the benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  4. 28-Mar-2026

    Final arguments

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  5. 23-Mar-2026

    Final arguments

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  6. 27-Feb-2026

    Final arguments

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  7. 27-Jan-2026

    Final arguments

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  8. 29-Nov-2025

    Final arguments

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  9. 28-Oct-2025

    Final arguments

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  10. 04-Sep-2025

    Final arguments

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  11. 03-Jul-2025

    Final arguments

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  12. 29-Apr-2025

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

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  13. 18-Feb-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  14. 04-Dec-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  15. 21-Aug-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  16. 13-Mar-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  17. 13-Sep-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  18. 20-Mar-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  19. 22-Nov-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  20. 30-Jul-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  21. 12-Apr-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  22. 11-Jan-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  23. 08-Nov-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  24. 17-Jul-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  25. 27-Apr-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

  26. 03-Feb-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate

  27. 07-Dec-2020

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  28. 07-Sep-2020

    Case filed

    Registration No. 542/2020

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State v. Saroj Devi & Suman (Cr. Reg. Case 542/2020) Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate acquitted both accused—Saroj Devi (wife of Surender, age 40) and Suman Devi (wife of Vijendra, age 45)—of charges under IPC Sections 341, 323 read with 34 (criminal intimidation, voluntarily causing hurt, and common intention), finding insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The court identified serious contradictions in the prosecution's case, particularly regarding which individuals actually assaulted the complainants. While witness PW-02 (Rajesh Kumar, the injured party) testified that he was beaten along with his mother, he also stated that his brothers Sanjay and Naresh participated in the assault—yet these individuals were never charged. Similarly, witness PW-04 (Mali Devi, his mother) gave inconsistent statements about who attacked her. The court found these material inconsistencies rendered the prosecution narrative unreliable, especially when one witness was declared hostile and the medical evidence could be explained by accidental falls, warranting acquittal under the benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case