THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH HOME DEPARTMENT SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE vs ARIF KHA — Crl.A. No. 201/2011

Case under Section II-E. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010166982010

Filing Date

20-May-2010

Registration No

Crl.A. No. 201/2011

Diary Number

16698/2010

Order Date

22-Aug-2017

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Dismissed

Last updated 05-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section II-E

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH HOME DEPARTMENT SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE

    Adv. C. D. SINGH (Dead / Retired / Elevated)

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.ARIF KHA

    Adv. SIDDHARTH SINGLA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 22-Aug-2017

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 22-Aug-2017

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant

  4. 26-Apr-2017
  5. 26-Apr-2017
  6. 05-Jan-2017
  7. 05-Jan-2017
  8. 21-Nov-2016
  9. 21-Nov-2016
  10. 18-Oct-2016
  11. 18-Oct-2016
  12. 05-Sep-2016
  13. 05-Sep-2016
  14. 25-Jul-2016
  15. 25-Jul-2016
  16. 02-May-2016
  17. 02-May-2016

    Office ReportView PDF

  18. 02-May-2016
  19. 11-Mar-2016
  20. 11-Mar-2016

    Office ReportView PDF

  21. 11-Mar-2016
  22. 28-Jan-2016
  23. 28-Jan-2016
  24. 23-Nov-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  25. 28-Aug-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  26. 28-Aug-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  27. 06-May-2015
  28. 06-May-2015
  29. 15-Dec-2014
  30. 15-Dec-2014
  31. 26-Sep-2014
  32. 20-May-2010

    Case filed

    Registration No. Crl.A. No. 201/2011

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Arif Kha (Crl.A. No. 201/2011) The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeals on August 22, 2017, upholding the High Court's acquittal of accused persons convicted for a 2000 robbery where jewelry was looted and a person assaulted. The Court found the prosecution's case fatally weakened by the complainant's non-examination, recovered ornaments lacking documentary corroboration, and witness identification inconsistencies (witness identified accused in parade but not in court). The Court affirmed the High Court's correct evidentiary appreciation, noting the accused had already served 8+ years imprisonment before acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case