PRABHUDAS HARJIVAN LODHIYA vs REKHABEN W/O GHANSHYAM MAKODBHAI SATHALIYA Advocate - R F CHUVAN — 476/2010
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 114,379. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 30th April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJGS070003782010
Filing Number
476/2010
Filing Date
08-12-2010
Registration No
476/2010
Registration Date
08-12-2010
Court
TALUKA COURT, TALALA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
30th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
I 89
Police Station
TALALA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT
Year
2010
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PRABHUDAS HARJIVAN LODHIYA
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
REKHABEN W/O GHANSHYAM MAKODBHAI SATHALIYA Advocate - R F CHUVAN
GHANSHYAM MAKODBHAI SATHALIYA
Adv. R F CHUVAN
MUKESH @MUNNO MANJI KATHIYA
Adv. R F CHUVAN
RAMESH@ RAMNIK KESHUBHAI VALDOLIYA
Adv. J M KUMBHANI
DHIRU VRUJLAL MADANI
Adv. R F CHAUHAN
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 10-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 13-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 20-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 09-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: C.C. No. 476/2010 Court Decision: The court acquitted defendants Ghanshyamabhai Makodbhai Sathaliya and Ramesh Keshabhai Baldoliya of theft charges under IPC Sections 379 and 114, finding insufficient evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Defendants Rekhaben, Mukesh, and Dhirubhai were discharged under CrPC Section 299. Key Reasoning: While the prosecution established that gold beads (84 pieces valued at Rs. 17,200) were allegedly stolen from the complainant's jewelry shop on 24 August 2010, the court found critical evidentiary gaps. Key prosecution witnesses either died or failed to corroborate the theft narrative during cross-examination. Witness testimony lacked direct observation of the accused committing the theft, and crucial documentary evidence (seizure panchnama) remained unsupported. The court applied the *Sharad Sarda* precedent requiring complete circumstantial evidence forming an unbreakable chain—which was absent here. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: C.C. No. 476/2010 Court Decision: The court acquitted defendants Ghanshyamabhai Makodbhai Sathaliya and Ramesh Keshabhai Baldoliya of theft charges under IPC Sections 379 and 114, finding insufficient evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Defendants Rekhaben, Mukesh, and Dhirubhai were discharged under CrPC Section 299. Key Reasoning: While the prosecution established that gold beads (84 pieces valued at Rs. 17,200) were allegedly stolen from the complainant's jewelry shop on 24 August 2010, the court found critical evidentiary gaps. Key prosecution witnesses either died or failed to corroborate the theft narrative during cross-examination. Witness testimony lacked direct observation of the accused committing the theft, and crucial documentary evidence (seizure panchnama) remained unsupported. The court applied the *Sharad Sarda* precedent requiring complete circumstantial evidence forming an unbreakable chain—which was absent here. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts