GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs SANDIP GOVINDBHAI GOD Advocate - P B VARSOLIYA — 133/2023
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 279,337,338,304A. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 16th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJKH030001952023
Filing Number
133/2023
Filing Date
28-01-2023
Registration No
133/2023
Registration Date
28-01-2023
Court
TALUKA COURT, MEHMEDABAD
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
0474
Police Station
MAHEMDAVAD POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
SANDIP GOVINDBHAI GOD Advocate - P B VARSOLIYA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
FINAL ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 12-01-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 30-12-2025 | JUDGEMENT |
| 15-12-2025 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Case 133/2023 Court Decision: The court acquitted the accused, Sandip Govindbhai God, of charges under Indian Penal Code sections 279, 337, 338, 304A and Motor Vehicles Act sections 177, 184. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was driving the motorcycle recklessly or negligently, or that the accident resulted solely from his actions. Key witnesses provided inconsistent testimonies, and critical facts—including the identity of the vehicle operator and the exact circumstances of the collision—remained unestablished. Applying established jurisprudence, the court held that absent conclusive proof of rash/negligent driving causing the accident, the benefit of doubt must favor the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 133/2023 Court Decision: The court acquitted the accused, Sandip Govindbhai God, of charges under Indian Penal Code sections 279, 337, 338, 304A and Motor Vehicles Act sections 177, 184. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was driving the motorcycle recklessly or negligently, or that the accident resulted solely from his actions. Key witnesses provided inconsistent testimonies, and critical facts—including the identity of the vehicle operator and the exact circumstances of the collision—remained unestablished. Applying established jurisprudence, the court held that absent conclusive proof of rash/negligent driving causing the accident, the benefit of doubt must favor the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts