Government of Gujarat vs RATHOD SAJJANSINH @ YASHPALSINH @ KAKA JALAMSINH AGARSINH Advocate - K B RATHOD — 1212/2023

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 279,337,338,427,323,114. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 01st April 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJMH070019442023

Filing Number

1212/2023

Filing Date

24-Aug-2023

Registration No

1212/2023

Registration Date

24-Aug-2023

Court

TALUKA COURT, VIJAPUR

Judge

1-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Decision Date

01-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 05-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11206074230268

Police Station

VIJAPUR POLICE STATION- MEHSANA DISTRICT

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 279,337,338,427,323,114
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 177,184,187
Gujarat (Bombay) Police Act, 1951 Section 135

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RATHOD SAJJANSINH @ YASHPALSINH @ KAKA JALAMSINH AGARSINH Advocate - K B RATHOD

  2. 2.PATEL CHIRAG @ BHAJJI BHAGABHAI DHULABHAI

  3. 3.RATHOD RAVINDRASINH SOMSINH

  4. 4.CHAUHAN UPENDRASINH @ PINTUBHA KIRTISINH NATHUSINH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    Judegement

    Summary: The court acquitted all four accused in this criminal case involving allegations of assault and rash/negligent driving. The judgment found that the prosecution failed to establish the elements of the charges under IPC sections 279, 304-A, 337, 323, 114, and 135 beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that while witnesses provided statements, critical evidence was lacking—including proof of rash or negligent driving, the vehicle's involvement, and the accused's direct participation. Additionally, the fact that complainants later settled disputes amicably with the accused further undermined the prosecution's case. Consequently, the accused were acquitted of all charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 11-Feb-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  6. 12-Jan-2026

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  7. 15-Dec-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  8. 29-Sep-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  9. 29-Jul-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  10. 09-Jul-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  11. 28-May-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  12. 05-May-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  13. 05-Mar-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  14. 10-Feb-2025

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  15. 04-Dec-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  16. 18-Oct-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  17. 02-Sep-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  18. 02-Jul-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  19. 04-May-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  20. 15-Mar-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  21. 05-Feb-2024

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  22. 19-Dec-2023

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  23. 04-Nov-2023

    Process To Accused

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  24. 20-Sep-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  25. 24-Aug-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1212/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The court acquitted all four accused in this criminal case involving allegations of assault and rash/negligent driving. The judgment found that the prosecution failed to establish the elements of the charges under IPC sections 279, 304-A, 337, 323, 114, and 135 beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that while witnesses provided statements, critical evidence was lacking—including proof of rash or negligent driving, the vehicle's involvement, and the accused's direct participation. Additionally, the fact that complainants later settled disputes amicably with the accused further undermined the prosecution's case. Consequently, the accused were acquitted of all charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case