Government of Gujarat vs LAKSHMANBHAI CHETANBHAI KISHORI Advocate - S V MALEK — 3930/2022
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 341,324,323,504,506(2),114,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 11th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJDH020044502022
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
3930/2022
Filing Date
22-11-2022
Registration No
3930/2022
Registration Date
22-11-2022
Court
CIVIL COURT DAHOD
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Decision Date
11th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
LAKSHMANBHAI CHETANBHAI KISHORI Advocate - S V MALEK
RAKESHBHAI CHETANBHAI KISHORI
Adv. S V MALEK
KAMALESHBHAI KANJIBHAI KISHORI
Adv. S V MALEK
CHETANBHAI SURAPALBHAI KISHORI
Adv. S V MALEK
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 06-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 02-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 24-02-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 13-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary Court Decision: All four accused (Lakshmanbhai Chetnabhai Kishori, Rakeshbhai Chetnabhai Kishori, Kamleshbhai Kanjibhai Kishori, and Chetnabhai Surpalbhai Kishori) were acquitted of charges under IPC sections 341, 324, 323, 504, 506(2), and 114. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, as the injured witness contradicted his earlier statement during cross-examination, and corroborating witnesses were not eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Court Decision: All four accused (Lakshmanbhai Chetnabhai Kishori, Rakeshbhai Chetnabhai Kishori, Kamleshbhai Kanjibhai Kishori, and Chetnabhai Surpalbhai Kishori) were acquitted of charges under IPC sections 341, 324, 323, 504, 506(2), and 114. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, as the injured witness contradicted his earlier statement during cross-examination, and corroborating witnesses were not eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts