State vs Kuldeep Singh etc. (Phase-V) Advocate - Darshan Singh Brar — 2247/2015
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 394,34. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 22nd April 2026.
Cr.o - Criminal Origanal
CNR: RJSG180000212015
Filing Number
1001252/2015
Filing Date
03-01-2015
Registration No
2247/2015
Registration Date
03-01-2015
Court
ACJM SADULSAHAR TALUKA
Judge
1-ACJM
Decision Date
22nd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
179
Police Station
Lalgarh Jathan Police Station,SGNR
Year
2014
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Kuldeep Singh etc. (Phase-V) Advocate - Darshan Singh Brar
HARPREET SINGH
Adv. D.S.BRAR
GURPREET SINGH
FATHE SINGH
Adv. D.S.BRAR
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ACJM
Disposed
Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 22-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 21-04-2026 | Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. |
| 18-04-2026 | Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. |
| 15-04-2026 | Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. |
| 10-04-2026 | Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Court Decision The court acquitted all three remaining accused (Fateh Singh, Kuldeep Singh, and Gurpreet Singh) in this dacoity case due to insufficient evidence. Although the complainants claimed their truck was robbed on August 4, 2014, the prosecution failed to establish the charges under Section 394/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Key evidentiary gaps included: no credible eyewitness identification of the accused, contradictory and insufficient recovery evidence with questionable witness testimonies, and weak circumstantial evidence. The court found that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused with certainty. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Court Decision The court acquitted all three remaining accused (Fateh Singh, Kuldeep Singh, and Gurpreet Singh) in this dacoity case due to insufficient evidence. Although the complainants claimed their truck was robbed on August 4, 2014, the prosecution failed to establish the charges under Section 394/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Key evidentiary gaps included: no credible eyewitness identification of the accused, contradictory and insufficient recovery evidence with questionable witness testimonies, and weak circumstantial evidence. The court found that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused with certainty. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts