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.
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
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.RAVI @ RAVLO SURATANBHAI DHANAK Advocate - H B PUROHIT
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
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.
-
07-Apr-2026
Disposed
2nd Addl District Judge
-
24-Mar-2026
Judgement
2nd Addl District Judge
-
10-Mar-2026
Further Statement
2nd Addl District Judge
-
05-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
2nd Addl District Judge
-
19-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
2nd Addl District Judge
-
05-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
2nd Addl District Judge
-
27-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
2nd Addl District Judge
-
16-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
2nd Addl District Judge
-
08-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
2nd Addl District Judge
-
30-Dec-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
2nd Addl District Judge
-
16-Dec-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
2nd Addl District Judge
-
02-Dec-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
2nd Addl District Judge
-
18-Nov-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
2nd Addl District Judge
-
07-Nov-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
2nd Addl District Judge
-
29-Oct-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
2nd Addl District Judge
-
16-Oct-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
2nd Addl District Judge
-
06-Oct-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
2nd Addl District Judge
-
22-Sep-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
2nd Addl District Judge
-
09-Sep-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
2nd Addl District Judge
-
26-Aug-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
2nd Addl District Judge
-
13-Aug-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
2nd Addl District Judge
-
30-Jul-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
2nd Addl District Judge
-
17-Jul-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
2nd Addl District Judge
-
09-Jul-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
2nd Addl District Judge
-
25-Jun-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
2nd Addl District Judge
-
11-Jun-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
2nd Addl District Judge
-
04-Jun-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
2nd Addl District Judge
-
27-May-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
2nd Addl District Judge
-
15-May-2025
Evidence For Charge
ADDL District Judge & SPECIAL Judge (Posco)
-
01-May-2025
Evidence For Charge
ADDL District Judge & SPECIAL Judge (Posco)
-
19-Apr-2025
Evidence For Charge
ADDL District Judge & SPECIAL Judge (Posco)
-
04-Apr-2025
Evidence For Charge
ADDL District Judge & SPECIAL Judge (Posco)
-
25-Mar-2025
Evidence For Charge
ADDL District Judge & SPECIAL Judge (Posco)
-
10-Mar-2025
Evidence For Charge
ADDL District Judge & SPECIAL Judge (Posco)
-
24-Feb-2025
Evidence For Charge
ADDL District Judge & SPECIAL Judge (Posco)
-
10-Feb-2025
Framing Of Charge/Plea
ADDL District Judge & SPECIAL Judge (Posco)
-
24-Jan-2025
Framing Of Charge/Plea
ADDL District Judge & SPECIAL Judge (Posco)
-
10-Jan-2025
Framing Of Charge/Plea
ADDL District Judge & SPECIAL Judge (Posco)
-
01-Jan-2025
Framing Of Charge/Plea
ADDL District Judge & SPECIAL Judge (Posco)
-
21-Dec-2024
Framing Of Charge/Plea
ADDL District Judge & SPECIAL Judge (Posco)
-
13-Dec-2024
Framing Of Charge/Plea
ADDL District Judge & SPECIAL Judge (Posco)
-
03-Dec-2024
Framing Of Charge/Plea
ADDL District Judge & SPECIAL Judge (Posco)
-
28-Nov-2024
Framing Of Charge/Plea
ADDL District Judge & SPECIAL Judge (Posco)
-
14-Nov-2024
Framing Of Charge/Plea
ADDL District Judge & SPECIAL Judge (Posco)
-
05-Nov-2024
Framing Of Charge/Plea
ADDL District Judge & SPECIAL Judge (Posco)
-
24-Oct-2024
Framing Of Charge/Plea
ADDL District Judge & SPECIAL Judge (Posco)
-
09-Oct-2024
Copies To Accused
ADDL District Judge & SPECIAL Judge (Posco)
-
01-Oct-2024
Copies To Accused
ADDL District Judge & SPECIAL Judge (Posco)
-
18-Sep-2024
Copies To Accused
ADDL District Judge & SPECIAL Judge (Posco)
-
04-Sep-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
02-Sep-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 31/2024
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