Government of Gujarat vs JASPALSINH DHARMENDRASINH JADEJA Advocate - N H LALANI — 966/2024

Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 189(2),191(2),191(3),115(2),118(1),351(3),352,61. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 05th June 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJJM040012272024

Filing Number

966/2024

Filing Date

06-Sep-2024

Registration No

966/2024

Registration Date

06-Sep-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, JAMJODHPUR

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

05-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 24-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11202026240475

Police Station

JAMJODHPUR POLICE STATION - JAMNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 189(2),191(2),191(3),115(2),118(1),351(3),352,61
Gujarat (Bombay) Police Act, 1951 Section 135(1)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.JASPALSINH DHARMENDRASINH JADEJA Advocate - N H LALANI

  2. 2.PARTHRAJSINH DHARMENDRASINH JADEJA

  3. 3.DARSHANSINH VIRENDRASINH JADEJA

  4. 4.PRIYARAJSINH HARVIJAYSINH JADEJA

  5. 5.UTAMRAJSINH KISHORSINH JADEJA

  6. 6.MANHARSINH SHIVRAJSINH JADEJA

  7. 7.SHISUPALSINH PRUTHVIRAJSINH JADEJA

  8. 8.DUSYANTSINH RAJENDRASINH JADEJA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-Jun-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: Government of Gujarat v. Jaspalsinh Dharmendrasinh Jadeja (Case 966/2024) The court acquitted all eight accused of charges under IPC sections 148, 151, 151(3), 149, 188(1), 341(3), 342, 506, and 135(1). The prosecution failed to prove charges of unlawful assembly and rioting arising from a parking dispute incident. Despite witness testimony and documentary evidence, the court found that the complainant and key witnesses could not identify the accused, provide evidence of weapon usage, or prove threats. All main prosecution witnesses were declared hostile by the prosecution itself, and their cross-examination yielded no corroborating evidence. The court held the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, entitling accused to benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-Jun-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 18-May-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 12-May-2026

    Further Statement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 16-Apr-2026

    Further Statement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 03-Apr-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  8. 20-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  9. 05-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  10. 16-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  11. 19-Dec-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  12. 07-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  13. 26-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  14. 29-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  15. 24-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  16. 30-May-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  17. 17-Apr-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  18. 28-Feb-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  19. 04-Jan-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  20. 16-Nov-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  21. 10-Sep-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  22. 06-Sep-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 966/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Government of Gujarat v. Jaspalsinh Dharmendrasinh Jadeja (Case 966/2024) The court acquitted all eight accused of charges under IPC sections 148, 151, 151(3), 149, 188(1), 341(3), 342, 506, and 135(1). The prosecution failed to prove charges of unlawful assembly and rioting arising from a parking dispute incident. Despite witness testimony and documentary evidence, the court found that the complainant and key witnesses could not identify the accused, provide evidence of weapon usage, or prove threats. All main prosecution witnesses were declared hostile by the prosecution itself, and their cross-examination yielded no corroborating evidence. The court held the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, entitling accused to benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case