Government of Gujarat vs CHETANSINH DAVSINH RAWAT Advocate - P A KHACHAR — 463/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 304(A),279,337,338,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 30th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJAM080009162024
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
463/2024
Filing Date
19-11-2024
Registration No
463/2024
Registration Date
19-11-2024
Court
TALUKA COURT, BABRA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11193008240166
Police Station
BABRA POLICE STATION - AMRELI DISTRICT
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
CHETANSINH DAVSINH RAWAT Advocate - P A KHACHAR
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 17-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 09-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 09-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 05-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court acquitted the accused, Chetsingh Devsingh Rawat, finding that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Despite evidence of a fatal accident involving a truck on March 18, 2024, the court determined that the prosecution could not conclusively prove the accused was the truck driver or that he operated the vehicle recklessly, as no independent witness could reliably identify the accused or the vehicle's speed. The court emphasized that while one witness provided testimony, corroborating evidence was insufficient to sustain conviction under IPC sections 304(a), 279, 337, 338, and MV Act sections 134, 177, 184. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court acquitted the accused, Chetsingh Devsingh Rawat, finding that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Despite evidence of a fatal accident involving a truck on March 18, 2024, the court determined that the prosecution could not conclusively prove the accused was the truck driver or that he operated the vehicle recklessly, as no independent witness could reliably identify the accused or the vehicle's speed. The court emphasized that while one witness provided testimony, corroborating evidence was insufficient to sustain conviction under IPC sections 304(a), 279, 337, 338, and MV Act sections 134, 177, 184. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts