Procecution vs Murli Advocate - DURGA SHANKAR GOYAL — 4/2020
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 450,376. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 12th May 2026.
Session Case
CNR: RJJW070000162020
Filing Number
4/2020
Filing Date
06-01-2020
Registration No
4/2020
Registration Date
06-01-2020
Court
ADJ Aklera Jhalawar District
Judge
11-ADJ
Decision Date
12th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
146
Police Station
Manohar Thana
Year
2019
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Procecution
Adv. ADP
Respondent(s)
Murli Advocate - DURGA SHANKAR GOYAL
Hearing History
Judge: 11-ADJ
Disposed
Judgment
Final arguments
Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
Prosecution Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 08-05-2026 | Judgment |
| 25-04-2026 | Final arguments |
| 16-04-2026 | Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. |
| 15-04-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Case 4/2020 Court Decision: The Additional Session Judge acquitted accused Murli (son of Gangaram) of charges under IPC Sections 456 (house-breaking) and 376 (rape) on May 12, 2026, finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The court identified critical investigative gaps including: the First Information Report filed six days after the alleged April 8, 2019 incident without explanation; contradictory witness statements regarding when the victim reported the crime; failure to examine key witnesses present at the crime scene (victim's 6-year-old daughter and 12-year-old sister-in-law); medical examination showing no physical corroboration of rape; and conflicting testimonies about the victim's clothing damage. The court also noted an underlying land dispute between the accused's family and the victim's family, suggesting possible motive for a false complaint. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 4/2020 Court Decision: The Additional Session Judge acquitted accused Murli (son of Gangaram) of charges under IPC Sections 456 (house-breaking) and 376 (rape) on May 12, 2026, finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The court identified critical investigative gaps including: the First Information Report filed six days after the alleged April 8, 2019 incident without explanation; contradictory witness statements regarding when the victim reported the crime; failure to examine key witnesses present at the crime scene (victim's 6-year-old daughter and 12-year-old sister-in-law); medical examination showing no physical corroboration of rape; and conflicting testimonies about the victim's clothing damage. The court also noted an underlying land dispute between the accused's family and the victim's family, suggesting possible motive for a false complaint. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts