Government of Gujarat vs HINESH ARAVINDBHAI JOSHI Advocate - C H ACHARYA — 2415/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 304A,279,337,338. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 03rd June 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJKT020039682024

Filing Number

2415/2024

Filing Date

28-May-2024

Registration No

2415/2024

Registration Date

28-May-2024

Court

CIVIL COURT BHUJ

Judge

1-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

Decision Date

03-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGEMENT

Last updated 18-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11205039230728

Police Station

BHUJ TALUKA POLICE STATION - KACHCHH DISTRICT

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 304A,279,337,338
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 177,184,134

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.HINESH ARAVINDBHAI JOSHI Advocate - C H ACHARYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 03-Jun-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: Government of Gujarat v. Hinesh Aravindbhai Joshi Court Decision: The accused, Hinesh Aravindbhai Joshi, was acquitted of all charges under IPC sections 279, 337, 338, 304(a) and MV Act sections 177, 184, 134 related to a fatal hit-and-run accident in Bhuj-Kutch on December 7, 2023. Key Reasoning: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Crucially, none of the eyewitnesses actually witnessed the accident; they only learned of it afterward. The investigating officer admitted no eyewitness was present and no identification parade was conducted. Additionally, no CCTV footage was obtained. The court held that without direct evidence linking the accused to rash/negligent driving causing death, acquittal was warranted under established criminal law principles requiring the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 03-Jun-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  4. 02-Jun-2026

    Further Statement

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  5. 30-May-2026

    Further Statement

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  6. 26-May-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  7. 21-Apr-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  8. 16-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  9. 02-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  10. 09-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  11. 13-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  12. 28-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  13. 29-May-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge

  14. 06-Mar-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge and A.C.J.M.

  15. 23-Jan-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge and A.C.J.M.

  16. 05-Dec-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge and A.C.J.M.

  17. 17-Oct-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge and A.C.J.M.

  18. 09-Aug-2024

    Summons - Notice

    3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge and A.C.J.M.

  19. 15-Jul-2024

    Summons - Notice

    3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge and A.C.J.M.

  20. 05-Jul-2024

    Summons - Notice

    3rd Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge and A.C.J.M.

  21. 28-Jun-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  22. 28-May-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 2415/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Government of Gujarat v. Hinesh Aravindbhai Joshi Court Decision: The accused, Hinesh Aravindbhai Joshi, was acquitted of all charges under IPC sections 279, 337, 338, 304(a) and MV Act sections 177, 184, 134 related to a fatal hit-and-run accident in Bhuj-Kutch on December 7, 2023. Key Reasoning: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Crucially, none of the eyewitnesses actually witnessed the accident; they only learned of it afterward. The investigating officer admitted no eyewitness was present and no identification parade was conducted. Additionally, no CCTV footage was obtained. The court held that without direct evidence linking the accused to rash/negligent driving causing death, acquittal was warranted under established criminal law principles requiring the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case