Government of Gujarat vs JUSHAB URFE JUSSO GULAM SHIRU Advocate - S M KHANNA — 6/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 64(2)(M),65(1),351(3). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 04th May 2026.
PCSO - SPECIAL CASE - PCSO
CNR: GJKT010005612026
Filing Number
6/2026
Filing Date
04-02-2026
Registration No
6/2026
Registration Date
04-02-2026
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT BHUJ
Judge
25-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
04th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
11205031250483
Police Station
MANDVI POLICE STATION - KACHCHH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP, H B JADEJA, M T GADHVI
Respondent(s)
JUSHAB URFE JUSSO GULAM SHIRU Advocate - S M KHANNA
Hearing History
Judge: 25-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 04-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 02-05-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 01-05-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 30-04-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 29-04-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Special Judge (POCSO) at Bhuj-Kachchh acquitted accused Jushab @ Jusso Shiru Gulam Shiru of charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and POCSO Act, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged incident and failed to establish that the accused committed sexual assault against her beyond reasonable doubt. Critically, DNA testing excluded the accused as the biological father of the victim's child, and the victim herself, along with her parents, testified that no sexual assault occurred—contradicting the prosecution's narrative. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Special Judge (POCSO) at Bhuj-Kachchh acquitted accused Jushab @ Jusso Shiru Gulam Shiru of charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and POCSO Act, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged incident and failed to establish that the accused committed sexual assault against her beyond reasonable doubt. Critically, DNA testing excluded the accused as the biological father of the victim's child, and the victim herself, along with her parents, testified that no sexual assault occurred—contradicting the prosecution's narrative. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts