Government of Gujarat vs RAVI @ RAVLO SURATANBHAI DHANAK Advocate - H B PUROHIT — 31/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 363,366,376(2)(N),376(3). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 07th April 2026.

Case disposed

PCSO - SPECIAL CASE - PCSO

CNR: GJCU010011772024

Filing Number

31/2024

Filing Date

02-Sep-2024

Registration No

31/2024

Registration Date

02-Sep-2024

Court

DISTRICT COURT, Chhota Udepur

Judge

4-2nd Addl District Judge

Decision Date

07-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 04-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11184002231016

Police Station

CHHOTUDEPUR POLICE STATION - CHHOTAUDEPUR DISTRICT

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 363,366,376(2)(N),376(3)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 4,6

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAVI @ RAVLO SURATANBHAI DHANAK Advocate - H B PUROHIT

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: Special POCSO Case No. 31/2024 Court Decision: The accused, Ravi @ Ravlo Suratanbhai Dhanak, was acquitted and discharged of all charges under IPC Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(N), 376(3), and POCSO Act Sections 4 and 6. Key Reasoning: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove: 1. Victim's age as minor: The victim's age could not be conclusively established as below 18 years at the time of the alleged incident (October 20, 2023). The school leaving certificate alone was insufficient without corroborating evidence and examination of the person who recorded the date of birth. The victim's parents could not recall her exact birth date. 2. Alleged kidnapping and rape: The victim testified that no abduction or sexual assault occurred. She stated she left home willingly during a domestic dispute and had a consensual relationship with the accused involving their shared intention to marry. 3. Medical evidence: Medical examinations revealed no injuries or signs of forced sexual intercourse on the victim. 4. Witness credibility: Key prosecution witnesses (victim's mother, brother, and father) were declared "hostile witnesses" as they contradicted the FIR allegations during examination. 5. DNA evidence admissibility: The DNA expert who conducted the analysis was not examined in court, rendering the DNA report inadmissible per Supreme Court precedent. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish a legally admissible foundation for its case, making conviction impossible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    2nd Addl District Judge

  4. 24-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    2nd Addl District Judge

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    Further Statement

    2nd Addl District Judge

  6. 05-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl District Judge

  7. 19-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl District Judge

  8. 05-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl District Judge

  9. 27-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl District Judge

  10. 16-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl District Judge

  11. 08-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl District Judge

  12. 30-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl District Judge

  13. 16-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl District Judge

  14. 02-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl District Judge

  15. 18-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl District Judge

  16. 07-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl District Judge

  17. 29-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl District Judge

  18. 16-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl District Judge

  19. 06-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl District Judge

  20. 22-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl District Judge

  21. 09-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl District Judge

  22. 26-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl District Judge

  23. 13-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl District Judge

  24. 30-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl District Judge

  25. 17-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl District Judge

  26. 09-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl District Judge

  27. 25-Jun-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl District Judge

  28. 11-Jun-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl District Judge

  29. 04-Jun-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl District Judge

  30. 27-May-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    2nd Addl District Judge

  31. 15-May-2025

    Evidence For Charge

    ADDL  District Judge &  SPECIAL Judge (Posco)

  32. 01-May-2025

    Evidence For Charge

    ADDL  District Judge &  SPECIAL Judge (Posco)

  33. 19-Apr-2025

    Evidence For Charge

    ADDL  District Judge &  SPECIAL Judge (Posco)

  34. 04-Apr-2025

    Evidence For Charge

    ADDL  District Judge &  SPECIAL Judge (Posco)

  35. 25-Mar-2025

    Evidence For Charge

    ADDL  District Judge &  SPECIAL Judge (Posco)

  36. 10-Mar-2025

    Evidence For Charge

    ADDL  District Judge &  SPECIAL Judge (Posco)

  37. 24-Feb-2025

    Evidence For Charge

    ADDL  District Judge &  SPECIAL Judge (Posco)

  38. 10-Feb-2025

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    ADDL  District Judge &  SPECIAL Judge (Posco)

  39. 24-Jan-2025

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    ADDL  District Judge &  SPECIAL Judge (Posco)

  40. 10-Jan-2025

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    ADDL  District Judge &  SPECIAL Judge (Posco)

  41. 01-Jan-2025

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    ADDL  District Judge &  SPECIAL Judge (Posco)

  42. 21-Dec-2024

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    ADDL  District Judge &  SPECIAL Judge (Posco)

  43. 13-Dec-2024

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    ADDL  District Judge &  SPECIAL Judge (Posco)

  44. 03-Dec-2024

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    ADDL  District Judge &  SPECIAL Judge (Posco)

  45. 28-Nov-2024

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    ADDL  District Judge &  SPECIAL Judge (Posco)

  46. 14-Nov-2024

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    ADDL  District Judge &  SPECIAL Judge (Posco)

  47. 05-Nov-2024

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    ADDL  District Judge &  SPECIAL Judge (Posco)

  48. 24-Oct-2024

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    ADDL  District Judge &  SPECIAL Judge (Posco)

  49. 09-Oct-2024

    Copies To Accused

    ADDL  District Judge &  SPECIAL Judge (Posco)

  50. 01-Oct-2024

    Copies To Accused

    ADDL  District Judge &  SPECIAL Judge (Posco)

  51. 18-Sep-2024

    Copies To Accused

    ADDL  District Judge &  SPECIAL Judge (Posco)

  52. 04-Sep-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  53. 02-Sep-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 31/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Special POCSO Case No. 31/2024 Court Decision: The accused, Ravi @ Ravlo Suratanbhai Dhanak, was acquitted and discharged of all charges under IPC Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(N), 376(3), and POCSO Act Sections 4 and 6. Key Reasoning: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove: 1. Victim's age as minor: The victim's age could not be conclusively established as below 18 years at the time of the alleged incident (October 20, 2023). The school leaving certificate alone was insufficient without corroborating evidence and examination of the person who recorded the date of birth. The victim's parents could not recall her exact birth date. 2. Alleged kidnapping and rape: The victim testified that no abduction or sexual assault occurred. She stated she left home willingly during a domestic dispute and had a consensual relationship with the accused involving their shared intention to marry. 3. Medical evidence: Medical examinations revealed no injuries or signs of forced sexual intercourse on the victim. 4. Witness credibility: Key prosecution witnesses (victim's mother, brother, and father) were declared "hostile witnesses" as they contradicted the FIR allegations during examination. 5. DNA evidence admissibility: The DNA expert who conducted the analysis was not examined in court, rendering the DNA report inadmissible per Supreme Court precedent. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish a legally admissible foundation for its case, making conviction impossible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case