The State of Gujarat vs PRAVINBHAI JESINGBHAI PARMAR Advocate - A B THANKI — 20/2022
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 376(2)(N),506(2). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION on 29th April 2026.
SC - SESSIONS CASE
CNR: GJGS010008052022
Filing Number
20/2022
Filing Date
29-04-2022
Registration No
20/2022
Registration Date
29-04-2022
Court
District Court, Veraval
Judge
2-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
29th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION
FIR Details
FIR Number
11186004220080
Police Station
PRABHAS PATAN POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Gujarat
Adv. K D VALA
Respondent(s)
PRAVINBHAI JESINGBHAI PARMAR Advocate - A B THANKI
Hearing History
Judge: 2-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 20-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 18-04-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 08-04-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 06-04-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
CASE SUMMARY In Sessions Case No. 20/2022, the State of Gujarat prosecuted PRAVINBHAI JESINGBHAI PARMAR, a teacher, on charges under IPC sections 376(2)(N) and 506(2) for allegedly seducing and sexually assaulting a young woman under promise of marriage. The court partially convicted the accused of rape under section 376(2)(N), sentencing him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹5,000, while acquitting him under section 506(2) regarding death threats. The judgment emphasized that consent given under false promise of marriage and misconception of fact is not valid consent under law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
CASE SUMMARY In Sessions Case No. 20/2022, the State of Gujarat prosecuted PRAVINBHAI JESINGBHAI PARMAR, a teacher, on charges under IPC sections 376(2)(N) and 506(2) for allegedly seducing and sexually assaulting a young woman under promise of marriage. The court partially convicted the accused of rape under section 376(2)(N), sentencing him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹5,000, while acquitting him under section 506(2) regarding death threats. The judgment emphasized that consent given under false promise of marriage and misconception of fact is not valid consent under law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts