Procesuction vs Abdul Hafiz Advocate - Bhupendra Singh Hada — 14/2015

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 279,337,304A. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 07th April 2026.

Case disposed

Criminal Regular

CNR: RJJW110000112015

Filing Number

21/2015

Filing Date

24-Feb-2015

Registration No

14/2015

Registration Date

24-Feb-2015

Court

JM Khanpur Jhalawar District

Judge

11-Cj and Jm

Decision Date

07-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 31-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 279,337,304A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Procesuction

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Abdul Hafiz Advocate - Bhupendra Singh Hada

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Apr-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Case Summary: 14/2015 Court Decision: The court acquitted Abdul Hafiz (accused) of charges under IPC sections 279, 337, and 304(A) on April 7, 2026. Key Facts: On November 14, 2014, a motor accident occurred near Kaithooni when a Hindustan tractor (RJ 33 RA 1004) collided with a motorcycle carrying complainant Golu and his family, resulting in the death of Golu's 5-year-old son Meesh and injuries to others. Court's Reasoning: Despite testimony from eyewitnesses and the complainant, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was operating the tractor at the time of the accident. No eyewitness directly identified the accused as the tractor driver. Key witnesses admitted not knowing the tractor's registration number or who was driving. The child's death was caused by rope entanglement rather than direct collision impact, supported by postmortem findings. The absence of reliable identification evidence and contradictions in witness statements meant the charge could not be established beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Cj and Jm

  4. 24-Mar-2026

    Final arguments

    Cj and Jm

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  6. 27-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  7. 12-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  8. 12-Feb-2026

    Restored

    Cj and Jm

  9. 12-Feb-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  10. 12-Feb-2026

    Disposed

    Cj and Jm

  11. 28-Jan-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  12. 15-Jan-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  13. 08-Jan-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  14. 10-Dec-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  15. 02-Dec-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  16. 25-Nov-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  17. 11-Nov-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  18. 31-Oct-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  19. 09-Oct-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  20. 24-Sep-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  21. 12-Sep-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  22. 30-Aug-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  23. 22-Aug-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  24. 01-Jul-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  25. 22-Apr-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  26. 18-Feb-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  27. 26-Nov-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  28. 15-Oct-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  29. 20-Aug-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  30. 01-Jul-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  31. 20-Jun-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  32. 22-Feb-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  33. 23-Nov-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  34. 20-Sep-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  35. 23-Jun-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  36. 24-Feb-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  37. 15-Oct-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  38. 29-Jul-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  39. 19-Apr-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  40. 13-Dec-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  41. 31-Jul-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  42. 01-May-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  43. 04-Jan-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  44. 02-Sep-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  45. 20-Jul-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  46. 23-Apr-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  47. 13-Nov-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  48. 10-May-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  49. 29-Nov-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  50. 16-May-2017

    Prosecution Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  51. 21-Oct-2016

    Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  52. 02-Mar-2016

    Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  53. 30-Sep-2015

    Evidence

    Cj and Jm

  54. 30-Sep-2015

    Restored

    Cj and Jm

  55. 30-Sep-2015

    Disposed

    Cj and Jm

  56. 25-Aug-2015

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  57. 24-Feb-2015

    Case filed

    Registration No. 14/2015

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 14/2015 Court Decision: The court acquitted Abdul Hafiz (accused) of charges under IPC sections 279, 337, and 304(A) on April 7, 2026. Key Facts: On November 14, 2014, a motor accident occurred near Kaithooni when a Hindustan tractor (RJ 33 RA 1004) collided with a motorcycle carrying complainant Golu and his family, resulting in the death of Golu's 5-year-old son Meesh and injuries to others. Court's Reasoning: Despite testimony from eyewitnesses and the complainant, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was operating the tractor at the time of the accident. No eyewitness directly identified the accused as the tractor driver. Key witnesses admitted not knowing the tractor's registration number or who was driving. The child's death was caused by rope entanglement rather than direct collision impact, supported by postmortem findings. The absence of reliable identification evidence and contradictions in witness statements meant the charge could not be established beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case