State of Rajasthan vs Jagdish Meena — 86/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 351(3),64(1). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 12th March 2026.
Session Case
CNR: RJPG010008102025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
686/2025
Filing Date
17-09-2025
Registration No
86/2025
Registration Date
26-09-2025
Court
DJ ADJ COURT PRATAPGARH DISTRICT HQ
Judge
1-District Judge
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
0095
Police Station
Devgarh
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Rajasthan
Adv. Public Prosecutor
Respondent(s)
Jagdish Meena
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge
Disposed
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Prosecution Evidence | |
| 09-03-2026 | Prosecution Evidence | |
| 20-02-2026 | Prosecution Evidence | |
| 23-01-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The Session Court in Pratapgarh, Rajasthan acquitted accused Jagdish on March 12, 2026 of rape charges under Section 64(1) of the Indian Penal Code due to insufficient evidence. While the prosecution presented testimonies from the victim and investigating officer, the victim herself contradicted the rape allegations during cross-examination, stating no such incident occurred and that the complaint was filed due to a monetary dispute over Rs. 1.5 lakh. Additionally, the critical FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) report, though samples were sent, was never produced as evidence to corroborate the rape claim, creating reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The Session Court in Pratapgarh, Rajasthan acquitted accused Jagdish on March 12, 2026 of rape charges under Section 64(1) of the Indian Penal Code due to insufficient evidence. While the prosecution presented testimonies from the victim and investigating officer, the victim herself contradicted the rape allegations during cross-examination, stating no such incident occurred and that the complaint was filed due to a monetary dispute over Rs. 1.5 lakh. Additionally, the critical FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) report, though samples were sent, was never produced as evidence to corroborate the rape claim, creating reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts