Procecution vs Jugraj Advocate - DURGA SHANKAR GOYAL — 74/2019
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 341,323,325,326,307. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 28th March 2026.
Session Case
CNR: RJJW070004962019
Filing Number
320/2019
Filing Date
20-Aug-2019
Registration No
74/2019
Registration Date
20-Aug-2019
Court
ADJ Aklera Jhalawar District
Judge
11-ADJ
Decision Date
28-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Last updated 31-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
245
Police Station
Manohar Thana
Year
2019
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Procecution
Adv. ADP
Respondent(s)
-
1.Jugraj Advocate - DURGA SHANKAR GOYAL
-
2.Pappulal @ Beeramchand
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
28-Mar-2026
JudgementView PDF
Case Summary: Session Case 74/2019 Court Decision: The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted defendants Jugraj (Durga Shankar Goyal) and Pappulal @ Beeramchand of charges under IPC Sections 341, 323, 325, 326, and 307, finding the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that contradictions in the complainant's testimony, inconsistencies between medical evidence and allegations, and corroborating witness accounts supporting the defendants' defense that the injury resulted from a motorcycle accident rather than assault, rendered the charges unproven. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
28-Mar-2026
Disposed
ADJ
-
17-Mar-2026
Judgment
ADJ
-
13-Mar-2026
Final arguments
ADJ
-
05-Mar-2026
Defence Evidence
ADJ
-
23-Feb-2026
Defence Evidence
ADJ
-
04-Feb-2026
Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
ADJ
-
09-Jan-2026
Prosecution Evidence
ADJ
-
26-Nov-2025
Prosecution Evidence
ADJ
-
16-Oct-2025
Prosecution Evidence
ADJ
-
12-Sep-2025
Prosecution Evidence
ADJ
-
02-Aug-2025
Prosecution Evidence
ADJ
-
19-Jun-2025
Prosecution Evidence
ADJ
-
09-May-2025
Prosecution Evidence
ADJ
-
17-Apr-2025
Prosecution Evidence
ADJ
-
21-Mar-2025
Prosecution Evidence
ADJ
-
20-Feb-2025
Prosecution Evidence
ADJ
-
16-Jan-2025
Prosecution Evidence
ADJ
-
30-Nov-2024
Prosecution Evidence
ADJ
-
25-Oct-2024
Prosecution Evidence
ADJ
-
07-Sep-2024
Prosecution Evidence
ADJ
-
29-Jul-2024
Prosecution Evidence
ADJ
-
21-Jun-2024
Prosecution Evidence
ADJ
-
01-Jun-2024
Prosecution Evidence
ADJ
-
25-Apr-2024
Prosecution Evidence
ADJ
-
26-Feb-2024
Prosecution Evidence
ADJ
-
08-Jan-2024
Prosecution Evidence
ADJ
-
07-Nov-2023
Prosecution Evidence
ADJ
-
16-Sep-2023
Prosecution Evidence
ADJ
-
20-Jul-2023
Prosecution Evidence
ADJ
-
23-May-2023
Prosecution Evidence
ADJ
-
27-Mar-2023
Prosecution Evidence
ADJ
-
10-Jan-2023
Prosecution Evidence
ADJ
-
01-Nov-2022
Prosecution Evidence
ADJ
-
19-Sep-2022
Prosecution Evidence
ADJ
-
19-Jul-2022
Prosecution Evidence
ADJ
-
23-May-2022
Prosecution Evidence
ADJ
-
11-Apr-2022
Prosecution Evidence
ADJ
-
28-Feb-2022
Framing of Charge/ Plea
-
14-Dec-2021
Framing of Charge/ Plea
ADJ
-
12-Oct-2021
Framing of Charge/ Plea
ADJ
-
25-Aug-2021
Framing of Charge/ Plea
ADJ
-
01-Jul-2021
Framing of Charge/ Plea
ADJ
-
13-May-2021
Framing of Charge/ Plea
ADJ
-
05-Mar-2021
Framing of Charge/ Plea
ADJ
-
12-Jan-2021
Framing of Charge/ Plea
ADJ
-
07-Nov-2020
Framing of Charge/ Plea
ADJ
-
06-Nov-2020
Framing of Charge/ Plea
ADJ
-
19-Oct-2020
Framing of Charge/ Plea
ADJ
-
09-Sep-2020
Framing of Charge/ Plea
ADJ
-
19-Aug-2020
Framing of Charge/ Plea
ADJ
-
15-Jul-2020
Framing of Charge/ Plea
ADJ
-
01-Jul-2020
Framing of Charge/ Plea
ADJ
-
20-May-2020
Framing of Charge/ Plea
ADJ
-
03-Apr-2020
Framing of Charge/ Plea
ADJ
-
17-Feb-2020
Framing of Charge/ Plea
ADJ
-
06-Feb-2020
Framing of Charge/ Plea
ADJ
-
10-Dec-2019
Framing of Charge/ Plea
ADJ
-
02-Nov-2019
Framing of Charge/ Plea
ADJ
-
01-Oct-2019
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
20-Aug-2019
Case filed
Registration No. 74/2019
Case Summary: Session Case 74/2019 Court Decision: The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted defendants Jugraj (Durga Shankar Goyal) and Pappulal @ Beeramchand of charges under IPC Sections 341, 323, 325, 326, and 307, finding the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that contradictions in the complainant's testimony, inconsistencies between medical evidence and allegations, and corroborating witness accounts supporting the defendants' defense that the injury resulted from a motorcycle accident rather than assault, rendered the charges unproven. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts