State Government vs Asraf mohammad Advocate - Kapil Vyas — 201/2025
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 374. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 28th April 2026.
Session Case
CNR: RJRS010019182025
Filing Number
1644/2025
Filing Date
24-Apr-2023
Registration No
201/2025
Registration Date
24-Apr-2023
Court
DJ ADJ Rajsamand District HQ
Judge
1-District Judge
Decision Date
28-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Last updated 27-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State Government
Adv. PP DJ
Respondent(s)
-
1.Asraf mohammad Advocate - Kapil Vyas
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
28-Apr-2026
order/judgementView PDF
Case Summary: State Government v. Asraf Mohammad (Case 201/2025) The court acquitted defendant Asraf Mohammad of charges under IPC Section 374 and Sections 75, 79 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015, finding the prosecution failed to prove child labor allegations. The court determined that while a 17-year-old boy was found at a fish shop on March 22, 2023, the evidence—including inconsistent witness statements and lack of independent corroboration—was insufficient to establish that the accused unlawfully compelled the child to work or maintained control over him for labor purposes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
28-Apr-2026
Disposed
District Judge
-
17-Apr-2026
Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
District Judge
-
23-Mar-2026
Prosecution Evidence
District Judge
-
29-Nov-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
24-Apr-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 201/2025
Case Summary: State Government v. Asraf Mohammad (Case 201/2025) The court acquitted defendant Asraf Mohammad of charges under IPC Section 374 and Sections 75, 79 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015, finding the prosecution failed to prove child labor allegations. The court determined that while a 17-year-old boy was found at a fish shop on March 22, 2023, the evidence—including inconsistent witness statements and lack of independent corroboration—was insufficient to establish that the accused unlawfully compelled the child to work or maintained control over him for labor purposes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts