STATE OF RAJASTHAN vs umesh nitharwal Advocate - kailash chand dhayal — 1741/2015

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 279,304(A). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 20th April 2026.

Case disposed

REG. CRI. CASE

CNR: RJSK120007262015

Filing Number

601228/2015

Filing Date

16-Dec-2015

Registration No

1741/2015

Registration Date

16-Dec-2015

Court

ACJM RINGUS TALUKA HQ

Judge

1-Acjm

Decision Date

20-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 05-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

384

Police Station

Reengus Thana

Year

2015

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 279,304(A)
Motor Vehicles Act Section 134/187

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF RAJASTHAN

    Adv. app

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.umesh nitharwal Advocate - kailash chand dhayal

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 20-Apr-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Summary The court acquitted the accused Umesh of charges under IPC Sections 279 (rash driving) and 304A (causing death by negligence) and Motor Vehicles Act Section 134/187, finding the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused drove the vehicle recklessly causing the victim's death. The court noted critical gaps in evidence, including the complainant's failure to name the vehicle driver in the FIR, inconsistencies in witness statements, and lack of independent corroboration linking the accused to the incident. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 20-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Acjm

  4. 15-Apr-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  5. 07-Apr-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  6. 24-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  7. 23-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  8. 10-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

  9. 10-Mar-2026

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  10. 01-Dec-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  11. 30-Oct-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  12. 24-Sep-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  13. 12-Aug-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  14. 12-Jun-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  15. 11-Mar-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  16. 21-Dec-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  17. 21-Oct-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  18. 14-Aug-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  19. 19-Jun-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  20. 03-Apr-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  21. 18-Jan-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  22. 20-Oct-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  23. 06-Sep-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  24. 19-Apr-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  25. 10-Apr-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  26. 05-Dec-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  27. 14-Oct-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  28. 29-Aug-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  29. 07-Jul-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  30. 07-Jun-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  31. 06-May-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  32. 31-Mar-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  33. 09-Dec-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate

  34. 21-Oct-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate

  35. 29-Jun-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate

  36. 10-Feb-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate

  37. 14-Oct-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate

  38. 06-Aug-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate

  39. 30-Apr-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate

  40. 08-Jan-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate

  41. 23-Oct-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate

  42. 13-Aug-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate

  43. 23-May-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate

  44. 05-Feb-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate

  45. 01-Nov-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate

  46. 19-Jul-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate

  47. 19-Apr-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate

  48. 23-Jan-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate

  49. 16-Nov-2017

    Prosecution Evidence

    Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate

  50. 13-Sep-2017

    Prosecution Evidence

    Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate

  51. 21-Jun-2017

    Prosecution Evidence

    Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate

  52. 13-Apr-2017

    Prosecution Evidence

    Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate

  53. 13-Feb-2017

    Prosecution Evidence

    Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate

  54. 11-Feb-2017

    Prosecution Evidence

    Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate

  55. 18-Nov-2016

    Prosecution Evidence

    Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate

  56. 19-Sep-2016

    Prosecution Evidence

    Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate

  57. 28-Jun-2016

    Prosecution Evidence

    Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate

  58. 26-Mar-2016

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  59. 16-Dec-2015

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1741/2015

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court acquitted the accused Umesh of charges under IPC Sections 279 (rash driving) and 304A (causing death by negligence) and Motor Vehicles Act Section 134/187, finding the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused drove the vehicle recklessly causing the victim's death. The court noted critical gaps in evidence, including the complainant's failure to name the vehicle driver in the FIR, inconsistencies in witness statements, and lack of independent corroboration linking the accused to the incident. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case