CHHOTE LAL vs ROHTASH — Crl.A. No. 2490/2014
Case under Section II-B. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010195142011
Filing Date
02-Jul-2011
Registration No
Crl.A. No. 2490/2014
Diary Number
19514/2011
Order Date
14-Dec-2023
Document Type
Judgement - of Main Case
Neutral Citation
2023 INSC 1072
Disposal Type
Dismissed
Last updated 06-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.CHHOTE LAL
Adv. ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA[P-1]
Respondent(s)
-
1.ROHTASH
Adv. MONIKA GUSAIN (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [R-7] ABHIJAT P. MEDH (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [R-6] ABHIJAT P. MEDH (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [R-5] ABHIJAT P. MEDH (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [R-4] ABHIJAT P. MEDH (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [R-3] ABHIJAT P. MEDH (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [R-2] ABHIJAT P. MEDH (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [R-1] ABHIJAT P. MEDH (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [R-1] B. K. PAL[R-6] B. K. PAL[R-5] B. K. PAL[R-4] B. K. PAL[R-3] B. K. PAL[R-1]
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
14-Dec-2023
Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF
-
14-Dec-2023
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
14-Dec-2023
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal
-
30-Nov-2023
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
30-Nov-2023
Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal
-
30-Nov-2023
Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal
-
29-Nov-2023
Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal
-
23-Nov-2023
After Week/Month/Vacation
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal
-
18-Jan-2022
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
18-Jan-2022
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka
-
14-Dec-2021
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
14-Dec-2021
After Week/Month/Vacation
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka
-
08-Jul-2021
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-Jul-2021
After Week/Month/Vacation
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy
-
13-Apr-2021
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
13-Apr-2021
After Week/Month/Vacation
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
-
23-Mar-2021
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
23-Mar-2021
After Week/Month/Vacation
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
-
16-Mar-2021
After Week/Month/Vacation
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
-
10-Feb-2021
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
10-Feb-2021
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
20-Oct-2016
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
20-Oct-2016
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
15-Dec-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
15-Dec-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
10-Dec-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
10-Dec-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
09-Dec-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
09-Dec-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
02-Dec-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
02-Dec-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-Jul-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-Jul-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Nov-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Nov-2014
Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Nov-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
19-Sep-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
18-Jul-2014
Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF
-
18-Jul-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
10-Mar-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
16-Dec-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
27-Sep-2013
Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF
-
27-Sep-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
14-Mar-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
16-Aug-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
02-Jul-2011
Case filed
Registration No. Crl.A. No. 2490/2014
-
[ 2023 INSC 1072 ]
Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF
Case Summary: Chhote Lal v. Rohtash (Crl.A. No. 002490/2014) The Supreme Court dismissed appellant Chhote Lal's appeal challenging the High Court's acquittal of six accused persons convicted of murder (Sections 148, 201/149, 302/149 IPC). The Court found the sole eyewitness testimony unreliable: Chhote Lal did not actually witness the killing or burning of the victim, failed to explain his inaction while his son was assaulted, suffered from credibility issues as a highly interested party with long-standing enmity against the accused, and his account contained discrepancies (omitting mention of firearm use despite postmortem confirming gunshot wounds). The chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete. The High Court's decision to extend benefit of doubt was upheld as the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts