The State of Gujarat vs Malde Urfe Malo Bhupatbhai Parmar, Koli Advocate - G B SAPARA — 5/2024
Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 71(1),329(4). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 28th April 2026.
PCSO - SPECIAL CASE - PCSO
CNR: GJJN220003502024
Filing Number
5/2024
Filing Date
04-Nov-2024
Registration No
5/2024
Registration Date
04-Nov-2024
Court
Additional Court, Vanthali
Judge
1-3rd Addl District Judge
Decision Date
28-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 21-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11203068240501
Police Station
VANTHALI POLICE STATION - JUNAGADH DISTRICT
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.The State of Gujarat
Adv. AGP
Respondent(s)
-
1.Malde Urfe Malo Bhupatbhai Parmar, Koli Advocate - G B SAPARA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
28-Apr-2026
Judegement
Court Decision Summary The court acquitted the accused (Malakh Bhupat Parmar) of charges under IPC Sections 71(1), 328(4), and POCSO Act Section 12, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. While the victim's testimony and medical evidence suggested a sexual assault incident occurred on September 15, 2024, significant inconsistencies and gaps in the evidence—including lack of corroboration, missing details about the alleged perpetrator's identity, and contradictions between different witness statements—created reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
28-Apr-2026
Disposed
3rd Addl District Judge
-
15-Apr-2026
Final Arguments
3rd Addl District Judge
-
09-Apr-2026
Final Arguments
3rd Addl District Judge
-
08-Apr-2026
Further Statement
3rd Addl District Judge
-
01-Apr-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
3rd Addl District Judge
-
25-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
3rd Addl District Judge
-
18-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
3rd Addl District Judge
-
11-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
3rd Addl District Judge
-
25-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
3rd Addl District Judge
-
18-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
3rd Addl District Judge
-
11-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
3rd Addl District Judge
-
04-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
3rd Addl District Judge
-
21-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
3rd Addl District Judge
-
31-Dec-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
3rd Addl District Judge
-
24-Dec-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
3rd Addl District Judge
-
17-Dec-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
3rd Addl District Judge
-
10-Dec-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
3rd Addl District Judge
-
03-Dec-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
3rd Addl District Judge
-
26-Nov-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
3rd Addl District Judge
-
19-Nov-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
3rd Addl District Judge
-
12-Nov-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
3rd Addl District Judge
-
29-Oct-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
3rd Addl District Judge
-
15-Oct-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
3rd Addl District Judge
-
08-Oct-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
3rd Addl District Judge
-
01-Oct-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
3rd Addl District Judge
-
24-Sep-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
3rd Addl District Judge
-
17-Sep-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
3rd Addl District Judge
-
08-Sep-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
3rd Addl District Judge
-
26-Aug-2025
Opening Up Of Case By Prosecution
3rd Addl District Judge
-
20-Aug-2025
Process To Accused
3rd Addl District Judge
-
08-Aug-2025
Process To Accused
3rd Addl District Judge
-
04-Jul-2025
Process To Accused
3rd Addl District Judge
-
23-May-2025
Process To Accused
3rd Addl District Judge
-
11-Apr-2025
Process To Accused
5th Addl District Judge
-
28-Mar-2025
Process To Accused
5th Addl District Judge
-
28-Feb-2025
Process To Accused
5th Addl District Judge
-
31-Jan-2025
Process To Accused
5th Addl District Judge
-
10-Jan-2025
Process To Accused
5th Addl District Judge
-
27-Dec-2024
Process To Accused
5th Addl District Judge
-
06-Dec-2024
Process To Accused
5th Addl District Judge
-
18-Nov-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
04-Nov-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 5/2024
Court Decision Summary The court acquitted the accused (Malakh Bhupat Parmar) of charges under IPC Sections 71(1), 328(4), and POCSO Act Section 12, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. While the victim's testimony and medical evidence suggested a sexual assault incident occurred on September 15, 2024, significant inconsistencies and gaps in the evidence—including lack of corroboration, missing details about the alleged perpetrator's identity, and contradictions between different witness statements—created reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts