THE STATE OF GUAJRAT vs DAUADBHAI SULEMANBHAI KUSHKIVALA Advocate - P K BHARVAD — 684/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 279,304A. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJAR060008582024

Filing Number

684/2024

Filing Date

07-Aug-2024

Registration No

684/2024

Registration Date

07-Aug-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, DHANSURA

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 29-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

00092

Police Station

DHANSURA POLICE STATION – ARVALLI @ MODASA DISTRICT

Year

2020

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 279,304A
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 177,184,134(B)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUAJRAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DAUADBHAI SULEMANBHAI KUSHKIVALA Advocate - P K BHARVAD

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    CASE SUMMARY: C.C.NO. 684-2024 Court Decision: The court acquitted the accused, Daudbhai Sulemanbhai Kushkivala, acquitting him of charges under Indian Penal Code Sections 279, 304(a), and Motor Vehicles Act sections 177, 184, 134(b). The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was rash/negligently driving the vehicle at the time of the fatal accident. Key Reasoning: Though a death occurred when a vehicle struck a motorcycle, the prosecution could not establish the driver's identity or rash/negligent driving. Witness testimonies were contradictory regarding vehicle details and driver identification, and no independent witness identified the accused as the driver. Without concrete evidence proving the accused drove recklessly or negligently causing death, conviction could not be sustained under applicable criminal law standards. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 03-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 21-Feb-2026

    Further Statement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 04-Feb-2026

    Further Statement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 01-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  8. 23-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  9. 03-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  10. 10-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  11. 04-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  12. 04-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  13. 02-Aug-2025

    Plea

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  14. 11-Jul-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  15. 05-Jun-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  16. 12-May-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  17. 11-Apr-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  18. 04-Mar-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  19. 16-Jan-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  20. 04-Dec-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  21. 22-Oct-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  22. 18-Sep-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  23. 07-Aug-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 684/2024

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY: C.C.NO. 684-2024 Court Decision: The court acquitted the accused, Daudbhai Sulemanbhai Kushkivala, acquitting him of charges under Indian Penal Code Sections 279, 304(a), and Motor Vehicles Act sections 177, 184, 134(b). The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was rash/negligently driving the vehicle at the time of the fatal accident. Key Reasoning: Though a death occurred when a vehicle struck a motorcycle, the prosecution could not establish the driver's identity or rash/negligent driving. Witness testimonies were contradictory regarding vehicle details and driver identification, and no independent witness identified the accused as the driver. Without concrete evidence proving the accused drove recklessly or negligently causing death, conviction could not be sustained under applicable criminal law standards. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case