THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs GAURAVBHAI SHIVRAMBHAI JOSHI Advocate - V I LODNA — 1637/2025
Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 85,115-2,296B,351-3. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 24th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBK130019922025
Filing Number
1637/2025
Filing Date
26-Dec-2025
Registration No
1637/2025
Registration Date
26-Dec-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT-DANTIWADA
Judge
1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
24-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 06-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
522
Police Station
PANTHAWADA POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP, K R JOSHI
Respondent(s)
-
1.GAURAVBHAI SHIVRAMBHAI JOSHI Advocate - V I LODNA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
Court Decision Summary The Dantiswada First Class Magistrate Court, in Criminal Case No. 1637/2025, acquitted the accused of all charges under IPC Sections 85, 115(2), 296(b), and 351(3). The court found that the prosecutrix's evidence was uncorroborated and lacked sufficient material support from the defense witnesses. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and that merely circumstantial or oral testimony without credible substantiating evidence could not sustain a conviction against the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
24-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
13-Mar-2026
Judgement
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
10-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
12-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
27-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C
-
26-Dec-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
26-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 1637/2025
Court Decision Summary The Dantiswada First Class Magistrate Court, in Criminal Case No. 1637/2025, acquitted the accused of all charges under IPC Sections 85, 115(2), 296(b), and 351(3). The court found that the prosecutrix's evidence was uncorroborated and lacked sufficient material support from the defense witnesses. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and that merely circumstantial or oral testimony without credible substantiating evidence could not sustain a conviction against the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts