STATE OF GUJARAT vs RANJITSINH ALIAS JITU MOHANSINH CHAVDA Advocate - B T MAKWANA — 27/2024
Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 352,54. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 29th May 2026.
ATRO - SPECIAL CASE - ATRO
CNR: GJKH010077052024
Filing Number
27/2024
Filing Date
23-12-2024
Registration No
27/2024
Registration Date
23-12-2024
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT NADIAD
Judge
5-3rd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
29th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11204021240583
Police Station
DAKOR POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. S R BHATT
Respondent(s)
RANJITSINH ALIAS JITU MOHANSINH CHAVDA Advocate - B T MAKWANA
UDAYSINH ALIAS MAHARAJ SAMANTSINH CHAUHAN
Adv. B T MAKWANA
Hearing History
Judge: 5-3rd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 15-05-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 01-05-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 16-04-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 30-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State of Gujarat vs. Ranjitsinh Chavda & Udaysinh Chauhan (27/2024) Court Decision: The court acquitted both accused persons under BNS Sections 352, 354 and the SC/ST Atrocities Act Section 3(1)(R)(S). The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused made caste-based slurs against the complainant in public view with intent to humiliate. Critical witness testimonies contained contradictions and inconsistencies, and no independent, impartial witnesses unconnected to the complainant corroborated the alleged derogatory utterances, making conviction unjustifiable under established precedent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: State of Gujarat vs. Ranjitsinh Chavda & Udaysinh Chauhan (27/2024) Court Decision: The court acquitted both accused persons under BNS Sections 352, 354 and the SC/ST Atrocities Act Section 3(1)(R)(S). The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused made caste-based slurs against the complainant in public view with intent to humiliate. Critical witness testimonies contained contradictions and inconsistencies, and no independent, impartial witnesses unconnected to the complainant corroborated the alleged derogatory utterances, making conviction unjustifiable under established precedent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts