STATE OF GUJARAT vs VINAYBHAI DAYABHAI KALARIYA Advocate - J P JOSHI — 318/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 279,337,338. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 14th May 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJJN030004372024

Case disposed

Filing Number

318/2024

Filing Date

09-07-2024

Registration No

318/2024

Registration Date

09-07-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, MENDARDA

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

14th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

11203039240146

Police Station

MENDARDA POLICE STATION - JUNAGADH DISTRICT

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 279,337,338
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 177,184

Petitioner(s)

STATE OF GUJARAT

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

VINAYBHAI DAYABHAI KALARIYA Advocate - J P JOSHI

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

14-05-2026

Disposed

08-05-2026

JUDGEMENT

01-05-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

10-04-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

12-03-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

Final Orders / Judgements

14-05-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Summary of Case 318/2024 State of Gujarat v. Vinaybhai Dayabhai Kalariya The court acquitted the accused of charges under IPC Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304A (rash/negligent driving causing injury/death) after finding insufficient evidence of identity and driving conduct. The prosecution failed to establish that the accused was driving the vehicle during the incident or that his driving was rash/negligent, as witness identification lacked corroboration and the vehicle's actual driver remained unidentified. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 318/2024 State of Gujarat v. Vinaybhai Dayabhai Kalariya The court acquitted the accused of charges under IPC Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304A (rash/negligent driving causing injury/death) after finding insufficient evidence of identity and driving conduct. The prosecution failed to establish that the accused was driving the vehicle during the incident or that his driving was rash/negligent, as witness identification lacked corroboration and the vehicle's actual driver remained unidentified. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, MENDARDA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case