Govt. vs Balram etc. — 477/2023

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 420,406,467,468,471,120b. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 17th April 2026.

Case disposed

Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR

CNR: RJJW080007202023

Filing Number

720/2023

Filing Date

09-May-2023

Registration No

477/2023

Registration Date

09-May-2023

Court

ACJM JM Aklera Jhalawar District

Judge

22-Scj and Acjm

Decision Date

17-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 31-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

305

Police Station

Aklera

Year

2022

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 420,406,467,468,471,120b

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Govt.

    Adv. po

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Balram etc.

  2. 2.Narendra Dodria

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Apr-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Summary of Case 477/2023 Court Decision: The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted both defendants—Balram son of Dhannalal Meghwal and Narendra Dodria—of charges under IPC sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, and 120B. The court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The court's detailed analysis revealed critical gaps in the prosecution's case. Twelve witnesses testified, but crucially: none could confirm seeing the forged stamp papers or documents with their own eyes; witnesses provided inconsistent testimony about dates, amounts, and details; the investigating officer failed to present key evidence properly; and the complainant (Ramcharan) was never examined in court. The court concluded that the circumstantial evidence was speculative and fell short of establishing the alleged conspiracy to defraud the complainant of ₹2 lakhs through forged property documents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Scj and Acjm

  4. 16-Apr-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  5. 15-Apr-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  6. 13-Apr-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  7. 09-Apr-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  8. 08-Apr-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  9. 07-Apr-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  10. 06-Apr-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  11. 04-Apr-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  12. 01-Apr-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  13. 28-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  14. 24-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  15. 23-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  16. 19-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  17. 17-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  18. 16-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  19. 13-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  20. 06-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  21. 27-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  22. 20-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  23. 13-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  24. 06-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  25. 30-Jan-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  26. 23-Jan-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  27. 16-Jan-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  28. 09-Jan-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  29. 02-Jan-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  30. 19-Dec-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  31. 05-Dec-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  32. 28-Nov-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  33. 21-Nov-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  34. 07-Nov-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  35. 31-Oct-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  36. 17-Oct-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  37. 10-Oct-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  38. 03-Oct-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  39. 26-Sep-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  40. 19-Sep-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  41. 12-Sep-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  42. 29-Aug-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  43. 04-Jul-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  44. 06-Jun-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  45. 09-May-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  46. 25-Apr-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  47. 11-Apr-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  48. 04-Apr-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  49. 28-Mar-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  50. 14-Feb-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Scj and Acjm

  51. 03-Jan-2025

    Framing of Charge/ Plea

    Scj and Acjm

  52. 22-Nov-2024

    Framing of Charge/ Plea

    Scj and Acjm

  53. 08-Nov-2024

    Framing of Charge/ Plea

    Scj and Acjm

  54. 18-Oct-2024

    Framing of Charge/ Plea

    Scj and Acjm

  55. 12-Jul-2024

    Framing of Charge/ Plea

    Scj and Acjm

  56. 24-May-2024

    Framing of Charge/ Plea

    Scj and Acjm

  57. 05-Apr-2024

    Framing of Charge/ Plea

    Scj and Acjm

  58. 09-Feb-2024

    Framing of Charge/ Plea

    Scj and Acjm

  59. 19-Jan-2024

    Framing of Charge/ Plea

    Scj and Acjm

  60. 27-Oct-2023

    Framing of Charge/ Plea

    Scj and Acjm

  61. 11-Aug-2023

    Framing of Charge/ Plea

    Scj and Acjm

  62. 09-May-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  63. 09-May-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 477/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 477/2023 Court Decision: The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted both defendants—Balram son of Dhannalal Meghwal and Narendra Dodria—of charges under IPC sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, and 120B. The court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The court's detailed analysis revealed critical gaps in the prosecution's case. Twelve witnesses testified, but crucially: none could confirm seeing the forged stamp papers or documents with their own eyes; witnesses provided inconsistent testimony about dates, amounts, and details; the investigating officer failed to present key evidence properly; and the complainant (Ramcharan) was never examined in court. The court concluded that the circumstantial evidence was speculative and fell short of establishing the alleged conspiracy to defraud the complainant of ₹2 lakhs through forged property documents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case