State Government vs Irfan @ Salman Advocate - Suresh Kumar Singh — 173/2015
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 413. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 10th March 2026.
Session Trial
CNR: UPCH010016352015
Filing Number
1216/2015
Filing Date
20-08-2015
Registration No
173/2015
Registration Date
20-08-2015
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
4-Addl. District and Sessions Judge - I
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
362
Police Station
KARVI
Year
2015
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State Government
Adv. ADGC
Respondent(s)
Irfan @ Salman Advocate - Suresh Kumar Singh
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Addl. District and Sessions Judge - I
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 24-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 17-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 04-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 23-01-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The court acquitted accused Irfan Urfan Salman of charges under Section 413 IPC (dishonestly receiving stolen property) due to insufficient prosecution evidence. While the accused was arrested with a stolen motorcycle (UP 73E-0342), the prosecution failed to establish his habitual involvement in theft or his knowledge that the motorcycle was stolen, and critically, did not produce any independent witness from the crime scene to corroborate the police's account of events. The court found the investigation and seizure procedures questionable, noting the lack of proper documentation and independent corroboration, ultimately granting the accused the benefit of doubt as required by criminal law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The court acquitted accused Irfan Urfan Salman of charges under Section 413 IPC (dishonestly receiving stolen property) due to insufficient prosecution evidence. While the accused was arrested with a stolen motorcycle (UP 73E-0342), the prosecution failed to establish his habitual involvement in theft or his knowledge that the motorcycle was stolen, and critically, did not produce any independent witness from the crime scene to corroborate the police's account of events. The court found the investigation and seizure procedures questionable, noting the lack of proper documentation and independent corroboration, ultimately granting the accused the benefit of doubt as required by criminal law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts