GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs MUKESHKUMAR SHANKARJI MINA Advocate - A A VYAS — 1282/2022
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 279,304A. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 08th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJGN050018232022
Filing Number
1282/2022
Filing Date
27-Apr-2022
Registration No
1282/2022
Registration Date
27-Apr-2022
Court
TALUKA COURT, KALOL
Judge
7-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
Decision Date
08-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 19-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11216024210721
Police Station
KALOL CITY POLICE STATION - GANDHINAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.MUKESHKUMAR SHANKARJI MINA Advocate - A A VYAS
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
Case Summary: Criminal Case No. 1282/2022 Court Decision: The accused Mukeshkumar Shankarji Mina was acquitted of charges under IPC Section 279, 304(a) and Motor Vehicles Act Sections 177, 183, 184, 187, 134(b). The court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The complainant and eyewitnesses provided contradictory testimonies—neither directly witnessed the accident, panch witnesses' oral accounts conflicted with their written statements, and critical evidence regarding vehicle speed, driver negligence, and identification remained unsubstantiated, making the case fail to meet the required evidentiary standard for criminal conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
08-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
06-Apr-2026
Final Arguments
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
24-Mar-2026
Final Arguments
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
17-Mar-2026
Further Statement
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
18-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
29-Dec-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
04-Nov-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
17-Sep-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
11-Aug-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
08-Jul-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
17-Apr-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
27-Jan-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
10-Dec-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
22-Oct-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
12-Sep-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
25-Jul-2024
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
25-Jun-2024
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
13-May-2024
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
14-Mar-2024
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
22-Jan-2024
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
04-Dec-2023
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
17-Oct-2023
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
31-Jul-2023
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
09-May-2023
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
07-Apr-2023
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
09-Mar-2023
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
06-Feb-2023
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
07-Jan-2023
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
06-Dec-2022
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
23-Nov-2022
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
21-Oct-2022
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
19-Sep-2022
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
12-Aug-2022
Process To Accused
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge
-
06-Jun-2022
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
27-Apr-2022
Case filed
Registration No. 1282/2022
Case Summary: Criminal Case No. 1282/2022 Court Decision: The accused Mukeshkumar Shankarji Mina was acquitted of charges under IPC Section 279, 304(a) and Motor Vehicles Act Sections 177, 183, 184, 187, 134(b). The court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The complainant and eyewitnesses provided contradictory testimonies—neither directly witnessed the accident, panch witnesses' oral accounts conflicted with their written statements, and critical evidence regarding vehicle speed, driver negligence, and identification remained unsubstantiated, making the case fail to meet the required evidentiary standard for criminal conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts