state vs Hansraj etc 3 Advocate - Mr. Avinash Gupta — 50/2019
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 302,34. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 15th May 2026.
Session Case
CNR: RJJW050004342019
Filing Number
342/2019
Filing Date
22-07-2019
Registration No
50/2019
Registration Date
09-08-2019
Court
NDPS Jhalawar District HQ
Judge
55-Judge Spl NDPS Court
Decision Date
15th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
143
Police Station
Khanpur
Year
2019
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
state
Adv. Spl.PP
Respondent(s)
Hansraj etc 3 Advocate - Mr. Avinash Gupta
Rajendra urf raju
Kajod urf balmukand
Hearing History
Judge: 55-Judge Spl NDPS Court
Disposed
Judgment
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 15-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-05-2026 | Judgment |
| 05-05-2026 | Final arguments |
| 01-05-2026 | Final arguments |
| 21-04-2026 | Final arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary Court Decision (Session Case 50/2019, Jhalawad District Court) The court acquitted all three accused—Hansraj Mogya (45), Rajendra alias Raju Mogya (40), and Kajod alias Balmukund Mogya (30)—of charges under IPC Sections 302/34 (murder) and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. Despite circumstantial evidence including recovered weapons (axe, iron chisel, bamboo stick) allegedly linking them to the victim Sugrim's death, the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Critical witnesses turned hostile, no eyewitness testimony placed the accused with the victim before the crime, and investigative procedures lacked independent verification. Applying precedent principles on circumstantial evidence, the court found the prosecution's case insufficient. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary Court Decision (Session Case 50/2019, Jhalawad District Court) The court acquitted all three accused—Hansraj Mogya (45), Rajendra alias Raju Mogya (40), and Kajod alias Balmukund Mogya (30)—of charges under IPC Sections 302/34 (murder) and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. Despite circumstantial evidence including recovered weapons (axe, iron chisel, bamboo stick) allegedly linking them to the victim Sugrim's death, the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Critical witnesses turned hostile, no eyewitness testimony placed the accused with the victim before the crime, and investigative procedures lacked independent verification. Applying precedent principles on circumstantial evidence, the court found the prosecution's case insufficient. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts