Government of Gujarat vs BALAVANTSINH DHIRUBHA JADEJA Advocate - R S GADHVI — 10/2022

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 323,294(B),506(2),114. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 08th April 2026.

ATRO - SPECIAL CASE - ATRO

CNR: GJKT010021082022

Case disposed

Filing Number

10/2022

Filing Date

17-03-2022

Registration No

10/2022

Registration Date

17-03-2022

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT BHUJ

Judge

31-8th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

Decision Date

08th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

FIR Details

FIR Number

11205032211376

Police Station

MUNDRA POLICE STATION - KACHCHH DISTRICT

Year

2021

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 323,294(B),506(2),114
Scheduled Casts and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Trocities) Act, 1989 Section 3(1)(R),3(2)(5-A)
Bombay Police Act, 1951 Section 135

Petitioner(s)

Government of Gujarat

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

BALAVANTSINH DHIRUBHA JADEJA Advocate - R S GADHVI

Hearing History

Judge: 31-8th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

08-04-2026

Disposed

11-03-2026

JUDGEMENT

17-02-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

31-01-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

12-01-2026

FURTHER STATEMENT

Final Orders / Judgements

08-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Summary The court acquitted the accused Balvantsinh Kherubha Jadeja of charges under IPC sections 323, 294(B), 506(2), 114, and the SC/ST Atrocities Act 1989. Finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the judge held that the complainant's testimony contradicted itself during cross-examination, and corroborating witnesses had inconsistencies that undermined the credibility of the allegations regarding assault, abusive language, and threats. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court acquitted the accused Balvantsinh Kherubha Jadeja of charges under IPC sections 323, 294(B), 506(2), 114, and the SC/ST Atrocities Act 1989. Finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the judge held that the complainant's testimony contradicted itself during cross-examination, and corroborating witnesses had inconsistencies that undermined the credibility of the allegations regarding assault, abusive language, and threats. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT BHUJ All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case