PRABHUDAS HARJIVAN LODHIYA vs KALUBHAI DANABHAI GHAROYA Advocate - J N PATEL — 305/2015
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 114,379. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 18th May 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJGS070004332015
Filing Number
305/2015
Filing Date
15-06-2015
Registration No
305/2015
Registration Date
15-06-2015
Court
TALUKA COURT, TALALA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
18th May 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)
KALUBHAI DANABHAI GHAROYA Advocate - J N PATEL
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 04-05-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 10-04-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 13-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 20-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: C.C. No. 305/2015 Court Decision: The accused Kalubhai Danabhai Gharoya was acquitted of charges under IPC Sections 379 and 114 (theft and abetment). The court found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: Despite evidence of a gold bead box theft from the complainant's jewelry shop in Talala on 24/08/2010, the complainant's own testimony and witness accounts contained significant inconsistencies and gaps. The accused's cross-examination testimony raised reasonable doubts about the theft's occurrence and the accused's involvement. The court applied the principle that when two interpretations are possible—guilt or innocence—the one favourable to the accused must be adopted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: C.C. No. 305/2015 Court Decision: The accused Kalubhai Danabhai Gharoya was acquitted of charges under IPC Sections 379 and 114 (theft and abetment). The court found the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: Despite evidence of a gold bead box theft from the complainant's jewelry shop in Talala on 24/08/2010, the complainant's own testimony and witness accounts contained significant inconsistencies and gaps. The accused's cross-examination testimony raised reasonable doubts about the theft's occurrence and the accused's involvement. The court applied the principle that when two interpretations are possible—guilt or innocence—the one favourable to the accused must be adopted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts