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
Filing Number
10/2022
Filing Date
17-Mar-2022
Registration No
10/2022
Registration Date
17-Mar-2022
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT BHUJ
Judge
31-8th Addl District Judge
Decision Date
08-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 21-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11205032211376
Police Station
MUNDRA POLICE STATION - KACHCHH DISTRICT
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
-
1.BALAVANTSINH DHIRUBHA JADEJA Advocate - R S GADHVI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
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.
-
08-Apr-2026
Disposed
8th Addl District Judge
-
11-Mar-2026
Judgement
8th Addl District Judge
-
17-Feb-2026
Final Arguments
8th Addl District Judge
-
31-Jan-2026
Further Statement
8th Addl District Judge
-
12-Jan-2026
Further Statement
8th Addl District Judge
-
02-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
8th Addl District Judge
-
16-Dec-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
8th Addl District Judge
-
14-Nov-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
8th Addl District Judge
-
03-Oct-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
8th Addl District Judge
-
30-Aug-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
8th Addl District Judge
-
31-Jul-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
8th Addl District Judge
-
27-Jun-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
8th Addl District Judge
-
03-Apr-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
5th Addl District Judge
-
30-Jan-2025
Evidence Of Prosecution
6th Addl District Judge
-
27-Nov-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
6th Addl District Judge
-
17-Sep-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
6th Addl District Judge
-
23-Jul-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
6th Addl District Judge
-
20-Jun-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
6th Addl District Judge
-
11-Jun-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
6th Addl District Judge
-
16-Apr-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
6th Addl District Judge
-
21-Feb-2024
Evidence Of Prosecution
6th Addl District Judge
-
27-Dec-2023
Evidence Of Prosecution
6th Addl District Judge
-
19-Oct-2023
Evidence Of Prosecution
6th Addl District Judge
-
31-Aug-2023
Framing Of Charge/Plea
6th Addl District Judge
-
20-Jul-2023
Framing Of Charge/Plea
6th Addl District Judge
-
20-Jun-2023
Framing Of Charge/Plea
6th Addl District Judge
-
11-May-2023
Opening Up Of Case By Prosecution
6th Addl District Judge
-
29-Mar-2023
Opening Up Of Case By Prosecution
6th Addl District Judge
-
07-Feb-2023
Opening Up Of Case By Prosecution
6th Addl District Judge
-
03-Jan-2023
Process To Accused
6th Addl District Judge
-
02-Dec-2022
Process To Accused
6th Addl District Judge
-
01-Dec-2022
Process To Accused
6th Addl District Judge
-
19-Oct-2022
Process To Accused
6th Addl District Judge
-
15-Sep-2022
Process To Accused
6th Addl District Judge
-
08-Aug-2022
Process To Accused
6th Addl District Judge
-
04-Jul-2022
Process To Accused
6th Addl District Judge
-
16-May-2022
Process To Accused
8th Addl District Judge
-
18-Apr-2022
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
17-Mar-2022
Case filed
Registration No. 10/2022
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.
Explore other courts