Government of Gujarat vs ANIRUDHSHINH HADMATSHINH VAGHELA Advocate - S U SODHA — 555/2023
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 332,186,506(2). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 27th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBK080008392023
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
555/2023
Filing Date
31-07-2023
Registration No
555/2023
Registration Date
31-07-2023
Court
TALUKA COURT, THARAD
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Decision Date
27th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11195050220820
Police Station
THARAD POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
ANIRUDHSHINH HADMATSHINH VAGHELA Advocate - S U SODHA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 27-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 12-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 21-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 10-12-2025 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted the accused Anirudhsinh Hadmatsinh Vaghe la under IPC sections 332, 186, and 506(2) for allegedly assaulting government employees during a mobile tower repair operation in Thrad. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt due to significant inconsistencies in witness testimonies, contradictions between complainants' statements and medical records regarding the nature of injuries (blunt vs. sharp weapon), and lack of corroborating evidence, thereby granting the accused the benefit of doubt as per legal precedent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court acquitted the accused Anirudhsinh Hadmatsinh Vaghe la under IPC sections 332, 186, and 506(2) for allegedly assaulting government employees during a mobile tower repair operation in Thrad. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt due to significant inconsistencies in witness testimonies, contradictions between complainants' statements and medical records regarding the nature of injuries (blunt vs. sharp weapon), and lack of corroborating evidence, thereby granting the accused the benefit of doubt as per legal precedent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts