State vs Ram dayal Advocate - BHURA LAL MEENA — 474/2015
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 354,354A. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 20th April 2026.
Criminal Regular
CNR: RJJW080002822015
Filing Number
583/2015
Filing Date
18-Aug-2015
Registration No
474/2015
Registration Date
18-Aug-2015
Court
ACJM JM Aklera Jhalawar District
Judge
33-Cj and Jm
Decision Date
20-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Last updated 31-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State
Adv. App
Respondent(s)
-
1.Ram dayal Advocate - BHURA LAL MEENA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
20-Apr-2026
JudgementView PDF
Case Summary: State v. Ram Dayal (Case 474/2015) Court Decision: The accused, Ram Dayal (age 37), was acquitted of charges under IPC Sections 354 and 354(k)(1) (outraging modesty of a woman). The court found the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to significant contradictions in witness testimonies and inconsistencies between the written complaint and courtroom statements. Key Reasoning: The main witness (complainant) stated the incident occurred at a community water tank but later testified it happened at a nearby location. Multiple supporting witnesses contradicted their own initial statements during cross-examination, admitting they had settled the matter outside court. The court noted the complainant accepted that only inappropriate remarks were made, not physical contact, contradicting the police report allegations of hand-grabbing and harassment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
20-Apr-2026
Disposed
Cj and Jm
-
15-Apr-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
06-Apr-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
28-Mar-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
23-Mar-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
13-Mar-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
06-Mar-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
27-Feb-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
19-Feb-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
06-Feb-2026
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Cj and Jm
-
27-Jan-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
14-Jan-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
07-Jan-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
19-Dec-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
05-Dec-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
26-Nov-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
13-Nov-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
30-Oct-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
15-Oct-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
16-Sep-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
03-Sep-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
01-Sep-2025
Restored
Cj and Jm
-
01-Sep-2025
Orders
Cj and Jm
-
23-Aug-2024
Disposed
Cj and Jm
-
17-Aug-2024
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Cj and Jm
-
31-Jul-2024
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Cj and Jm
-
18-Jul-2024
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Cj and Jm
-
02-Jul-2024
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Cj and Jm
-
15-Jun-2024
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Cj and Jm
-
24-May-2024
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Cj and Jm
-
03-May-2024
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Cj and Jm
-
08-Apr-2024
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Cj and Jm
-
01-Mar-2024
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Cj and Jm
-
23-Jan-2024
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Cj and Jm
-
06-Jan-2024
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Cj and Jm
-
17-Nov-2023
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Cj and Jm
-
21-Sep-2023
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Cj and Jm
-
09-Jun-2023
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Cj and Jm
-
10-Apr-2023
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Cj and Jm
-
15-Feb-2023
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Cj and Jm
-
09-Dec-2022
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Cj and Jm
-
21-Oct-2022
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Cj and Jm
-
07-Sep-2022
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Cj and Jm
-
06-Aug-2022
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Cj and Jm
-
06-Jul-2022
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Cj and Jm
-
30-May-2022
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Cj and Jm
-
22-Apr-2022
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Cj and Jm
-
17-Dec-2021
Service of Non-bailable warrant
Cj and Jm
-
06-Aug-2021
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
27-May-2021
Prosecution Evidence
Scj and Acjm
-
23-Mar-2021
Prosecution Evidence
-
06-Feb-2021
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
06-Jan-2021
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
23-Sep-2020
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
18-Aug-2020
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
04-Jul-2020
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
14-May-2020
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
21-Mar-2020
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
06-Feb-2020
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
14-Nov-2019
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
20-Aug-2019
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
16-May-2019
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
15-Mar-2019
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
19-Jan-2019
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
08-Oct-2018
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
11-Jul-2018
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
21-Apr-2018
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
03-Feb-2018
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
18-Nov-2017
Prosecution Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
16-Aug-2017
Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
14-Aug-2017
Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
21-Jul-2017
Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
19-Apr-2017
Evidence
Cj and Jm
-
21-Mar-2017
Awaiting Warrant
Cj and Jm
-
17-Feb-2017
Awaiting Warrant
Cj and Jm
-
06-Sep-2016
Awaiting Warrant
Cj and Jm
-
30-Jun-2016
Awaiting Warrant
Cj and Jm
-
07-May-2016
Awaiting Warrant
Cj and Jm
-
02-Mar-2016
Awaiting Warrant
Cj and Jm
-
22-Dec-2015
Charge
Cj and Jm
-
28-Oct-2015
Charge
Cj and Jm
-
01-Oct-2015
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
18-Aug-2015
Case filed
Registration No. 474/2015
Case Summary: State v. Ram Dayal (Case 474/2015) Court Decision: The accused, Ram Dayal (age 37), was acquitted of charges under IPC Sections 354 and 354(k)(1) (outraging modesty of a woman). The court found the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to significant contradictions in witness testimonies and inconsistencies between the written complaint and courtroom statements. Key Reasoning: The main witness (complainant) stated the incident occurred at a community water tank but later testified it happened at a nearby location. Multiple supporting witnesses contradicted their own initial statements during cross-examination, admitting they had settled the matter outside court. The court noted the complainant accepted that only inappropriate remarks were made, not physical contact, contradicting the police report allegations of hand-grabbing and harassment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts