State Government vs Sachin Kumar others — 567/2023
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 147,308,323,336. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 18th March 2026.
Sessions Case
CNR: UPMT010031512023
Filing Number
2707/2023
Filing Date
16-03-2023
Registration No
567/2023
Registration Date
16-03-2023
Court
District and Session Judge, Mathura
Judge
1-District & Session Judge
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
228
Police Station
MOGARRAH
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State Government
Adv. Apo
Respondent(s)
Sachin Kumar others
राजू
विपिन
रामेश्वर
विनीता
raju
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District & Session Judge
Disposed
Judgement
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 27-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 23-02-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Sessions Court, Mathura acquitted five accused persons (Sachin, Raju, Bippin, Rameshwar, and Vinita) of charges under IPC Sections 147, 323/149, 308/149, and 336, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the two key eyewitnesses—the complainant (Ajeet Singh) and the injured victim (Meena)—provided contradictory testimonies; the victim specifically denied being assaulted by the accused, stating she had merely collided with a wall. The court concluded that without credible eyewitness corroboration, the prosecution could not establish guilt and granted the accused benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Sessions Court, Mathura acquitted five accused persons (Sachin, Raju, Bippin, Rameshwar, and Vinita) of charges under IPC Sections 147, 323/149, 308/149, and 336, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the two key eyewitnesses—the complainant (Ajeet Singh) and the injured victim (Meena)—provided contradictory testimonies; the victim specifically denied being assaulted by the accused, stating she had merely collided with a wall. The court concluded that without credible eyewitness corroboration, the prosecution could not establish guilt and granted the accused benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts