STATE OF GUJARAT vs NARESHBHAI KANUBHAI CHAUHAN Advocate - S T BAJPAI — 40/2023

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 143,323,504,506(2). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 25th March 2026.

Case disposed

ATRO - SPECIAL CASE - ATRO

CNR: GJKH010060832023

Filing Number

40/2023

Filing Date

05-Dec-2023

Registration No

40/2023

Registration Date

05-Dec-2023

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT NADIAD

Judge

5-4th Addl District Judge

Decision Date

25-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 27-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11204025230629

Police Station

KHEDA POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 143,323,504,506(2)
Scheduled Casts and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Trocities) Act, 1989 Section 3(1)(R)(S),3(2)(5-A)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF GUJARAT

    Adv. N S ROHIT

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.NARESHBHAI KANUBHAI CHAUHAN Advocate - S T BAJPAI

  2. 2.ARVINBHAI ARJANBHAI CHAUHAN

    Adv. S T BAJPAI

  3. 3.VIJAYBHAI ATABHAI CHAUHAN

    Adv. S T BAJPAI

  4. 4.AMRUTBHAI CHUNIBHAI CHAUHAN

    Adv. S T BAJPAI

  5. 5.RAMESHBHAI DEVAJIBHAI GOHEL

    Adv. S T BAJPAI

  6. 6.GOPALBHAI RAVAJIBHAI CHAUHAN

    Adv. S T BAJPAI

  7. 7.PRAVINBHAI BHALABHAI RATHOD

    Adv. S T BAJPAI

  8. 8.ASHWINBHAI FATABHAI CHAUHAN

    Adv. S T BAJPAI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: Special Atrocity Case No. 40/2023 Court Decision The Special Atrocity Court (Judge M.J. Brahmbhatt) acquitted all eight accused persons on March 25, 2026, giving them the benefit of doubt under the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Indian Penal Code sections 143, 323, 504, 506(2). Key Reasoning The court found critical inconsistencies in the prosecution's case: the complainant was not an eyewitness to the alleged incident involving the actual victim (a 12-year-old girl), learned about it secondhand days later, and filed the complaint five days after the alleged October 24, 2023 incident without satisfactory explanation. Independent witness testimony did not corroborate alleged caste-based derogatory remarks. The court held that grave offences require stronger proof, and the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 25-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    4th Addl District Judge

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    4th Addl District Judge

  5. 24-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    4th Addl District Judge

  6. 12-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    4th Addl District Judge

  7. 30-Jan-2026

    Final Arguments

    4th Addl District Judge

  8. 16-Jan-2026

    Judgement

    4th Addl District Judge

  9. 30-Dec-2025

    Final Arguments

    4th Addl District Judge

  10. 19-Dec-2025

    Final Arguments

    4th Addl District Judge

  11. 28-Nov-2025

    Final Arguments

    4th Addl District Judge

  12. 06-Nov-2025

    Final Arguments

    4th Addl District Judge

  13. 15-Oct-2025

    Further Statement

    4th Addl District Judge

  14. 26-Sep-2025

    Further Statement

    4th Addl District Judge

  15. 11-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  16. 21-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  17. 06-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  18. 16-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  19. 25-Jun-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  20. 28-May-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  21. 14-May-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  22. 07-May-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  23. 23-Apr-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  24. 08-Apr-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  25. 18-Mar-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  26. 28-Feb-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  27. 05-Feb-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  28. 28-Jan-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  29. 07-Jan-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  30. 10-Dec-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  31. 19-Nov-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  32. 28-Oct-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  33. 07-Oct-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  34. 18-Sep-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  35. 04-Sep-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  36. 07-Aug-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  37. 03-Jul-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  38. 06-Jun-2024

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    3rd Addl District Judge

  39. 17-May-2024

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    4th Addl District Judge

  40. 25-Apr-2024

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    4th Addl District Judge

  41. 05-Apr-2024

    Documentary Evidence

    4th Addl District Judge

  42. 14-Mar-2024

    Documentary Evidence

    4th Addl District Judge

  43. 17-Feb-2024

    Documentary Evidence

    4th Addl District Judge

  44. 25-Jan-2024

    Documentary Evidence

    4th Addl District Judge

  45. 29-Dec-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  46. 05-Dec-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 40/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Special Atrocity Case No. 40/2023 Court Decision The Special Atrocity Court (Judge M.J. Brahmbhatt) acquitted all eight accused persons on March 25, 2026, giving them the benefit of doubt under the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Indian Penal Code sections 143, 323, 504, 506(2). Key Reasoning The court found critical inconsistencies in the prosecution's case: the complainant was not an eyewitness to the alleged incident involving the actual victim (a 12-year-old girl), learned about it secondhand days later, and filed the complaint five days after the alleged October 24, 2023 incident without satisfactory explanation. Independent witness testimony did not corroborate alleged caste-based derogatory remarks. The court held that grave offences require stronger proof, and the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable 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