STATE OF GUJARAT vs PRAKASHKUMAR ALIAS PRAVIN KANABHAI GOHIL Advocate - M N CHHASATIYA — 25/2025

Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 137(2),87,64(2)(m). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 21st April 2026.

PCSO - SPECIAL CASE - PCSO

CNR: GJKH180009842025

Case disposed

Filing Number

25/2025

Filing Date

02-09-2025

Registration No

25/2025

Registration Date

02-09-2025

Court

Addl. District Court,Kapadvanj

Judge

1-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

Decision Date

21st April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

11204027250095

Police Station

KATHLAL POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 137(2),87,64(2)(m)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 3(a),4,5(l),6,12

Petitioner(s)

STATE OF GUJARAT

Adv. M R PATEL

Respondent(s)

PRAKASHKUMAR ALIAS PRAVIN KANABHAI GOHIL Advocate - M N CHHASATIYA

Hearing History

Judge: 1-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

21-04-2026

Disposed

15-04-2026

JUDGEMENT

30-03-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

25-03-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

16-03-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

Final Orders / Judgements

21-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Summary of Case 25/2025 The Gujarat High Court acquitted the accused, Prakashkumar Uday Prvin Kanabhai Gohil, of charges under the Indian Penal Code Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(a) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 Sections 3(a), 4, 5(a), 6, 12. The court found that prosecution failed to prove the child victim's age at the time of the alleged offense and that state witnesses' testimony did not adequately support the charges, rendering the case insufficient for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 25/2025 The Gujarat High Court acquitted the accused, Prakashkumar Uday Prvin Kanabhai Gohil, of charges under the Indian Penal Code Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(a) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 Sections 3(a), 4, 5(a), 6, 12. The court found that prosecution failed to prove the child victim's age at the time of the alleged offense and that state witnesses' testimony did not adequately support the charges, rendering the case insufficient for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Addl. District Court,Kapadvanj All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case