Government of Gujarat vs KANABHAI VALABHAI BUJAD Advocate - S K BELA — 71/2025
Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 115(1),351(2),54. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTA on 07th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJDW030000872025
Filing Number
71/2025
Filing Date
06-02-2025
Registration No
71/2025
Registration Date
06-02-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, KALYANPUR
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
07th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTA
FIR Details
FIR Number
5240060
Police Station
JAMNAGAR RAILWAY POLICE STATION - JAMNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
KANABHAI VALABHAI BUJAD Advocate - S K BELA
MAYUR ALIAS RAJ S/O SOMABHAI PUNABHAI ASAVAR
Adv. S K BELA
HARDIK S/O BHIKHUBHAI MANDANBHAI ODICH
Adv. S K BELA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 28-02-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 07-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 17-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court acquitted three accused persons of charges under IPC sections 115(1), 351(2), and 54, finding insufficient evidence that they assaulted a railway magistrate on a train. While the magistrate testified about the incident, the panch (witness) testimonies were contradictory or non-supportive, and corroborating evidence from other credible witnesses was absent. The court held that panch witness support, though preferable, is not mandatory when other reliable evidence substantiates the prosecution's case, but here the totality of evidence failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court acquitted three accused persons of charges under IPC sections 115(1), 351(2), and 54, finding insufficient evidence that they assaulted a railway magistrate on a train. While the magistrate testified about the incident, the panch (witness) testimonies were contradictory or non-supportive, and corroborating evidence from other credible witnesses was absent. The court held that panch witness support, though preferable, is not mandatory when other reliable evidence substantiates the prosecution's case, but here the totality of evidence failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts