THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs KANABHAI TAPUBHAI VAGHELA Advocate - G P GOHIL — 296/2025

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 380,457,114. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 23rd June 2026.

Case disposedSub Stage

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBN120004122025

Filing Number

296/2025

Filing Date

08-May-2025

Registration No

296/2025

Registration Date

08-May-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, VALLABHIPUR

Judge

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

Decision Date

23-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 29-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

54

Police Station

VALLABHIPUR POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2005

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 380,457,114

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.KANABHAI TAPUBHAI VAGHELA Advocate - G P GOHIL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Jun-2026

    Judegement

    Summary of Case C.C.No. 296/2025 The Principal Judicial Magistrate acquitted accused Kanabhai Tapubhai Vaghela of theft charges (IPC Sections 380, 457, 114) due to insufficient evidence. While the prosecution established that jewelry and cash were stolen from the complainant's home during October 2004, no direct proof linked the defendant to the crime. The court found that circumstantial evidence and the testimony of panchas (witnesses) failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, applying the principle that suspicion—however strong—cannot replace proof. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Jun-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 27-May-2026

    Further Statement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 26-May-2026

    Further Statement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 06-May-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 15-Apr-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  8. 24-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  9. 10-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  10. 11-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  11. 28-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  12. 07-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  13. 17-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  14. 03-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  15. 19-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  16. 06-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  17. 15-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  18. 01-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  19. 17-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  20. 03-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  21. 13-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  22. 23-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  23. 01-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  24. 17-Jun-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  25. 28-May-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  26. 08-May-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  27. 08-May-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 296/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case C.C.No. 296/2025 The Principal Judicial Magistrate acquitted accused Kanabhai Tapubhai Vaghela of theft charges (IPC Sections 380, 457, 114) due to insufficient evidence. While the prosecution established that jewelry and cash were stolen from the complainant's home during October 2004, no direct proof linked the defendant to the crime. The court found that circumstantial evidence and the testimony of panchas (witnesses) failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, applying the principle that suspicion—however strong—cannot replace proof. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case