GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs PATEL ALPESH VITHTHALBHAI Advocate - R D KURESHI-G/910/2001 — 118/2024
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 279,337,338,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 07th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJMH120002442024
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
118/2024
Filing Date
15-02-2024
Registration No
118/2024
Registration Date
15-02-2024
Court
TALUKA COURT, UNJHA
Judge
2-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
07th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
PATEL ALPESH VITHTHALBHAI Advocate - R D KURESHI-G/910/2001
Hearing History
Judge: 2-ADDI CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 06-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 24-02-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 10-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 06-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Court Decision The court acquitted the accused (Alpesh Bhai) of charges under IPC Sections 279, 337, and 338, and MV Act Sections 177 and 184. While the complainant alleged that the accused recklessly hit the complainant's motorcycle with his car on May 19, 2023, causing injuries, the court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Key evidentiary gaps—including that no eyewitness directly observed the accused driving, the complainant could not identify the driver, and the complainant delayed filing the complaint by five months—created reasonable doubt regarding the accused's guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Court Decision The court acquitted the accused (Alpesh Bhai) of charges under IPC Sections 279, 337, and 338, and MV Act Sections 177 and 184. While the complainant alleged that the accused recklessly hit the complainant's motorcycle with his car on May 19, 2023, causing injuries, the court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Key evidentiary gaps—including that no eyewitness directly observed the accused driving, the complainant could not identify the driver, and the complainant delayed filing the complaint by five months—created reasonable doubt regarding the accused's guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts