U.P State Government vs Nishant jain alias Nishu — 456/2025

Case under Dowry Prohibition Act Section 3,4. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 19th March 2026.

Sessions Case

CNR: UPAU010017562025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1710/2025

Filing Date

10-04-2025

Registration No

456/2025

Registration Date

10-04-2025

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

2-Addl. District and Sessions Judge/FTC - I Auraiya

Decision Date

19th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

FIR Details

FIR Number

851

Police Station

Dibiyapur

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Dowry Prohibition Act Section 3,4
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 85,80

Petitioner(s)

U.P State Government

Respondent(s)

Nishant jain alias Nishu

padam chandra

Hearing History

Judge: 2-Addl. District and Sessions Judge/FTC - I Auraiya

19-03-2026

Disposed

16-03-2026

Charge

13-03-2026

Charge

10-03-2026

Charge

26-02-2026

Charge

Final Orders / Judgements

19-03-2026
Judgement

Court Decision Summary The court acquitted the accused Nishanth Urf Nishu and others of charges under IPC Sections 85, 80 (dowry-related harassment) and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and alternatively under Section 302 IPC. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused demanded dowry or harassed the deceased, as witness testimonies did not corroborate the allegations and no evidence established the accused caused the victim's death by hanging. The court determined that all prosecution witnesses were unreliable, contradicted each other, and the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to convict the accused under the dowry death provisions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The court acquitted the accused Nishanth Urf Nishu and others of charges under IPC Sections 85, 80 (dowry-related harassment) and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and alternatively under Section 302 IPC. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused demanded dowry or harassed the deceased, as witness testimonies did not corroborate the allegations and no evidence established the accused caused the victim's death by hanging. The court determined that all prosecution witnesses were unreliable, contradicted each other, and the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to convict the accused under the dowry death provisions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District and Session Judge All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case