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.
REG. CRI. CASE
CNR: RJSK120007262015
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
601228/2015
Filing Date
16-12-2015
Registration No
1741/2015
Registration Date
16-12-2015
Court
ACJM RINGUS TALUKA HQ
Judge
1-ACJM
Decision Date
20th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
FIR Details
FIR Number
384
Police Station
Reengus Thana
Year
2015
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Adv. app
Respondent(s)
umesh nitharwal Advocate - kailash chand dhayal
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ACJM
Disposed
Final arguments
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
Prosecution Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 20-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 15-04-2026 | Final arguments | |
| 07-04-2026 | Prosecution Evidence | |
| 24-03-2026 | Prosecution Evidence | |
| 23-03-2026 | Prosecution Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
Interim Orders
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts