STATE vs Roshan Khan Advocate - SH. RAJENDRA SINGH RATHOR — 38/2023
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 363,366,346,376. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 30th March 2026.
Session Case
CNR: RJMR260000852023
Filing Number
41/2023
Filing Date
21-03-2017
Registration No
38/2023
Registration Date
21-03-2017
Court
ADJ Jayal Taluka HQ
Judge
1-Add District and Sessions Judge, Jayal
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
28
Police Station
Jayal
Year
2016
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE
Adv. ADD.P.P.
Respondent(s)
Roshan Khan Advocate - SH. RAJENDRA SINGH RATHOR
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Add District and Sessions Judge, Jayal
Disposed
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
Defence Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 28-03-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 27-03-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 19-03-2026 | Defence Evidence |
| 12-03-2026 | Defence Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State v. Roshan Khan (Session Case 38/2023) Court: Additional Session Judge, Jayul (Nagaur District) Judge: Lakshman Ram Bishnoi (RJS) Decision Date: 30.03.2026 Verdict Acquitted Roshan Khan was acquitted of all charges under IPC Sections 363, 366, 346, and 376 (kidnapping, abduction, wrongful confinement, and rape). Key Facts The prosecution alleged that on April 4, 2016, the accused abducted a 19-year-old girl (victim) from her village, took her to Nagpur, and sexually assaulted her repeatedly over 9-10 months. Reasoning The court found critical inconsistencies and gaps in the prosecution's case: 1. Victim's prior relationship: Evidence showed the victim and accused had known each other for 4-5 years, with regular contact before the alleged incident 2. Contradictory statements: The victim denied the allegations in her initial police statement but later changed her account after parental pressure 3. Lack of corroboration: No video evidence, no car seized, no rental agreement for the alleged rented room 4. Voluntary departure: The victim left home of her own accord with academic documents and money, suggesting consent 5. Later willingness: Even after rescue, the victim wanted to marry the accused 6. Mobile phone available: The victim had a phone throughout and could have contacted family but didn't The court concluded the victim consented to the relationship and that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State v. Roshan Khan (Session Case 38/2023) Court: Additional Session Judge, Jayul (Nagaur District) Judge: Lakshman Ram Bishnoi (RJS) Decision Date: 30.03.2026 Verdict Acquitted Roshan Khan was acquitted of all charges under IPC Sections 363, 366, 346, and 376 (kidnapping, abduction, wrongful confinement, and rape). Key Facts The prosecution alleged that on April 4, 2016, the accused abducted a 19-year-old girl (victim) from her village, took her to Nagpur, and sexually assaulted her repeatedly over 9-10 months. Reasoning The court found critical inconsistencies and gaps in the prosecution's case: 1. Victim's prior relationship: Evidence showed the victim and accused had known each other for 4-5 years, with regular contact before the alleged incident 2. Contradictory statements: The victim denied the allegations in her initial police statement but later changed her account after parental pressure 3. Lack of corroboration: No video evidence, no car seized, no rental agreement for the alleged rented room 4. Voluntary departure: The victim left home of her own accord with academic documents and money, suggesting consent 5. Later willingness: Even after rescue, the victim wanted to marry the accused 6. Mobile phone available: The victim had a phone throughout and could have contacted family but didn't The court concluded the victim consented to the relationship and that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts