GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs ANIL SHIVMURAT BADNATH YADAV Advocate - A K CHAUHAN — 4563/2024

Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 281,106(1),125(1),125(2). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 18th June 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBH080051202024

Filing Number

4563/2024

Filing Date

19-Dec-2024

Registration No

4563/2024

Registration Date

19-Dec-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, JHAGADIA

Judge

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

Decision Date

18-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 22-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11199028240645

Police Station

JHAGADIA POLICE STATION - BHARUCH DISTRICT

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 281,106(1),125(1),125(2)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 177,184,187R/W,134

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.ANIL SHIVMURAT BADNATH YADAV Advocate - A K CHAUHAN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Jun-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: Criminal Case No. 4563/2024 Court Decision: The court acquitted the accused (Anil Shivmurat Badnath Yadav) of charges under IPC Sections 281, 106(1), 125(1), 125(2), and Motor Vehicles Act Sections 177, 184, 187(R/W), and 134. The court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly noting contradictions in witness testimonies and lack of credible physical evidence establishing the accused's culpability in the death of the petitioner's father. Key Reasoning: The court emphasized that the burden lies on the prosecution to prove guilt with solid, corroborated evidence; suspicion or circumstantial doubt is insufficient. The court criticized the investigation's inadequacies, including failure to properly identify eyewitnesses and collect substantial evidence linking the accused's alleged rash driving to the fatal accident. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Jun-2026

    Disposed

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 22-May-2026

    Judgement

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 04-May-2026

    Final Arguments

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 08-Apr-2026

    Final Arguments

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 18-Mar-2026

    Further Statement

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  8. 25-Feb-2026

    Further Statement

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  9. 30-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  10. 23-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  11. 02-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  12. 06-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  13. 29-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  14. 09-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  15. 28-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  16. 07-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  17. 09-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  18. 21-May-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  19. 05-Apr-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  20. 01-Mar-2025

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  21. 17-Feb-2025

    Process To Accused

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  22. 20-Jan-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  23. 19-Dec-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 4563/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Criminal Case No. 4563/2024 Court Decision: The court acquitted the accused (Anil Shivmurat Badnath Yadav) of charges under IPC Sections 281, 106(1), 125(1), 125(2), and Motor Vehicles Act Sections 177, 184, 187(R/W), and 134. The court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly noting contradictions in witness testimonies and lack of credible physical evidence establishing the accused's culpability in the death of the petitioner's father. Key Reasoning: The court emphasized that the burden lies on the prosecution to prove guilt with solid, corroborated evidence; suspicion or circumstantial doubt is insufficient. The court criticized the investigation's inadequacies, including failure to properly identify eyewitnesses and collect substantial evidence linking the accused's alleged rash driving to the fatal accident. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case