STATE vs PREM KUMAR ETC. Advocate - Harjeet Singh — 7/2018
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 307,399,353,147. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 16th April 2026.
Session Case
CNR: RJSG220000092018
Filing Number
9/2018
Filing Date
10-06-2016
Registration No
7/2018
Registration Date
11-05-2018
Court
ADJ GHARSHANA TALUKA
Judge
1-ADJ
Decision Date
16th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE
Adv. AD.P.P.
Respondent(s)
PREM KUMAR ETC. Advocate - Harjeet Singh
SUKHA @ SUKHWINDRA SINGH
RAMAN
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADJ
Disposed
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
Prosecution Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 15-04-2026 | Final arguments |
| 01-04-2026 | Final arguments |
| 28-03-2026 | Final arguments |
| 19-03-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State v. Prem Kumar (Session Case 7/2018) Court Decision: The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted accused Prem Kumar of all charges under IPC Sections 147, 307, 353, 399 and Arms Act Sections 3/25, 27, granting him the benefit of doubt. The court found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The court identified critical evidentiary gaps: CCTV footage from the bank area was never collected despite available cameras; the recovery of ammunition showed discrepancies between FIR records (4 live cartridges) and court evidence (4 spent cartridges); no bank official testified about actual robbery plans; and evidence of criminal conspiracy among five accused persons was not conclusively established. The court also noted prosecution failed to prove accused's connection to the alleged planning and that required approval under Arms Act Section 39 was never produced. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State v. Prem Kumar (Session Case 7/2018) Court Decision: The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted accused Prem Kumar of all charges under IPC Sections 147, 307, 353, 399 and Arms Act Sections 3/25, 27, granting him the benefit of doubt. The court found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The court identified critical evidentiary gaps: CCTV footage from the bank area was never collected despite available cameras; the recovery of ammunition showed discrepancies between FIR records (4 live cartridges) and court evidence (4 spent cartridges); no bank official testified about actual robbery plans; and evidence of criminal conspiracy among five accused persons was not conclusively established. The court also noted prosecution failed to prove accused's connection to the alleged planning and that required approval under Arms Act Section 39 was never produced. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts