Government of Gujarat vs SUNILKUMAR SHANKARBHAI TALPADA — 787/2025
Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 281,125(a),125(b). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 01st April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJKH090010292025
Filing Number
787/2025
Filing Date
29-10-2025
Registration No
787/2025
Registration Date
29-10-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, MAHUDHA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
01st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11204039250407
Police Station
MAHUDHA POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
SUNILKUMAR SHANKARBHAI TALPADA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 01-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 03-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 09-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 19-01-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: C.C.No.787/2025 The court acquitted defendant Sunilkumar Shankarbhai Talpada of charges under BNS sections 281, 337(a), 337(b) and MV Act sections 177, 184, finding the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he recklessly or negligently drove his CNG auto-rickshaw causing a collision that injured the complainant and two minor passengers. While medical evidence confirmed injuries occurred, the complainant's own cross-examination testimony undermined the case by acknowledging a dog suddenly appeared on the road, and no witness testimony definitively established the defendant's negligence caused the accident rather than the unexpected dog. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: C.C.No.787/2025 The court acquitted defendant Sunilkumar Shankarbhai Talpada of charges under BNS sections 281, 337(a), 337(b) and MV Act sections 177, 184, finding the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he recklessly or negligently drove his CNG auto-rickshaw causing a collision that injured the complainant and two minor passengers. While medical evidence confirmed injuries occurred, the complainant's own cross-examination testimony undermined the case by acknowledging a dog suddenly appeared on the road, and no witness testimony definitively established the defendant's negligence caused the accident rather than the unexpected dog. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts